Re: EU Referendum
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:50 am
The current Betfair odds suggest a probability of staying of between 72% and 73% and leaving between 27% and 28%.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Is this what your stand-up is like? Might have to come and see one of your shows. I laughed quite a lot.Gavin Chipper wrote:There are lots of countries that would want to join but basically aren't rich enough to. So even though the wealth cut-off is lower than it used to be, is it right that a group of largely rich countries join together to make it easy to trade among themselves at the expense of poorer countries?
...it only grows by taking in other countries that have reached some economic standard rather than for any particularly utilitarian reasons. Maybe it could be reformed, but arguably it's gone too far and it would be better to start off with an organisation specifically designed to bring the world together in a peaceful way that explicitly wants to include all countries rather than those that are a) rich (compared to some at least) and b) in Europe.
Well it's relative. The barriers that have prevented countries from joining over the years have been largely economic. And they're generally rich compared to many countries outside Europe (such as many African countries) who wouldn't be able to join even if they were geographically in Europe basically because they are too poor.Jennifer Steadman wrote:Is this what your stand-up is like? Might have to come and see one of your shows. I laughed quite a lot.Gavin Chipper wrote:There are lots of countries that would want to join but basically aren't rich enough to. So even though the wealth cut-off is lower than it used to be, is it right that a group of largely rich countries join together to make it easy to trade among themselves at the expense of poorer countries?
...it only grows by taking in other countries that have reached some economic standard rather than for any particularly utilitarian reasons. Maybe it could be reformed, but arguably it's gone too far and it would be better to start off with an organisation specifically designed to bring the world together in a peaceful way that explicitly wants to include all countries rather than those that are a) rich (compared to some at least) and b) in Europe.
If you weren't joking, please point me in the direction of some evidence for your claims. Like, any actual rule for joining the EU that involves 'being rich'.
Unless you can provide examples to support your claims, I'm not seeing any substance here. By which I very obviously mean 'examples of countries not being able to join the EU because of them being poor', and not 'examples of poor countries that are not in the EU'.Gavin Chipper wrote:Well it's relative. The barriers that have prevented countries from joining over the years have been largely economic. And they're generally rich compared to many countries outside Europe (such as many African countries) who wouldn't be able to join even if they were geographically in Europe basically because they are too poor.
It's not just about examples. There are explicit criteria for being in the EUJennifer Steadman wrote:Unless you can provide examples to support your claims, I'm not seeing any substance here. By which I very obviously mean 'examples of countries not being able to join the EU because of them being poor', and not 'examples of poor countries that are not in the EU'.Gavin Chipper wrote:Well it's relative. The barriers that have prevented countries from joining over the years have been largely economic. And they're generally rich compared to many countries outside Europe (such as many African countries) who wouldn't be able to join even if they were geographically in Europe basically because they are too poor.
And I don't think it's just coincidence that countries that have joined the EU more recently have been the poorer countries. They've joined when it's been deemed that they fit the criteria, including the economic criteria.economic criteria: a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces
Ignoring the fact that the criteria are subjective, none of that necessitates being rich. Not only are there many more criteria than just economic ones, there are also significant funds available to candidate member states (not to mention potential candidate states and beyond) to help them implement those criteria if cash were an issue for doing so. The major issues facing the 5 candidate nations (Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, Serbia, and Montenegro) and their accession at present are domestic political problems - all 5 have major issues with corruption - and tensions with other European nations.Gavin Chipper wrote:It's not just about examples. There are explicit criteria for being in the EU
And I don't think it's just coincidence that countries that have joined the EU more recently have been the poorer countries. They've joined when it's been deemed that they fit the criteria, including the economic criteria.economic criteria: a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces
Well I think the poorness and the political problems go hand in hand. I think it would be simplistic to say that one just causes the other. So it might not be the whole story to just say that their failure to be in the EU is purely because they're not rich enough but it's all part of it.Jennifer Steadman wrote:Ignoring the fact that the criteria are subjective, none of that necessitates being rich. Not only are there many more criteria than just economic ones, there are also significant funds available to candidate member states (not to mention potential candidate states and beyond) to help them implement those criteria if cash were an issue for doing so. The major issues facing the 5 candidate nations (Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, Serbia, and Montenegro) and their accession at present are domestic political problems - all 5 have major issues with corruption - and tensions with other European nations.
Yes, they're mostly pretty poor, but that's a consequence of the issues that are keeping them from joining the EU. Not the cause of them not joining the EU. Still, if you have hard evidence...
Srsly?Rhys Benjamin wrote:The Left wing argument for leaving the EU (which does exist, and has persuaded people I know) has been rather unexplored because of the media's insistence that this is a "blue-on-blue" affair (the BBC is by far the worst offender here). Vote Leave have had either Kate Hoey or Gisela Stuart on nearly every panel as a result.
It's more like 68/32 now. It's going in the "out" direction at the moment.Gavin Chipper wrote:The current Betfair odds suggest a probability of staying of between 72% and 73% and leaving between 27% and 28%.
If you're interested, here is an article suggesting that while more money has been bet in staying, more individual bets are being placed on Brexit:Gavin Chipper wrote:It's more like 68/32 now. It's going in the "out" direction at the moment.Gavin Chipper wrote:The current Betfair odds suggest a probability of staying of between 72% and 73% and leaving between 27% and 28%.
Interesting. Bit of a weird article though. But anyway, it seems a bit out-of-date because the odds appear to be moving in the other direction now.Paul Worsley wrote:If you're interested, here is an article suggesting that while more money has been bet in staying, more individual bets are being placed on Brexit:Gavin Chipper wrote:It's more like 68/32 now. It's going in the "out" direction at the moment.Gavin Chipper wrote:The current Betfair odds suggest a probability of staying of between 72% and 73% and leaving between 27% and 28%.
http://m.nasdaq.com/article/exclusive-b ... y-cm626239
I'm pretty sure this is true, but I think it's more down to perceived value. At one point you could get 4/1 on Leave - and given that the outcome is generally perceived as 50:50 with a lot of "don't know"s - a lot of people may well have thrown a few quid at it simply for the value angle.Paul Worsley wrote:If you're interested, here is an article suggesting that while more money has been bet in staying, more individual bets are being placed on Brexit:Gavin Chipper wrote:It's more like 68/32 now. It's going in the "out" direction at the moment.Gavin Chipper wrote:The current Betfair odds suggest a probability of staying of between 72% and 73% and leaving between 27% and 28%.
http://m.nasdaq.com/article/exclusive-b ... y-cm626239
Considering that many working class Labour voters are going to vote leave, there is certainly a mandate for the media to deliver the argument for "Lexit". If you notice what I said, I didn't think the argument has been given enough notice irrespective of internal Labour splits.Graeme Cole wrote:Srsly?Rhys Benjamin wrote:The Left wing argument for leaving the EU (which does exist, and has persuaded people I know) has been rather unexplored because of the media's insistence that this is a "blue-on-blue" affair (the BBC is by far the worst offender here). Vote Leave have had either Kate Hoey or Gisela Stuart on nearly every panel as a result.
At the time of posting, 168 Conservative MPs back Remain and 131 back leave (about 56%-44%). By contrast, of those to declare their position, 95% of Labour MPs back Remain, and the other parties are unanimous one way or the other, with left-leaning parties such as the Lib Dems and the SNP in, and the right such as UKIP and the DUP out. So it makes perfect sense to focus mainly on the Conservatives when talking about party splits on the issue, and you can't dispute that support for Brexit comes mainly from the right. You're going to have to find another stick to attack the BBC with, but I'm sure if you pick a different page at random from the Daily Fail you'll come up with something.
Nobody's saying there aren't politicians on the left who want to leave the EU, but they're in a small minority. There's a very small pool of Labour Brexiteers, which is presumably why the same Labour panellists keep cropping up on every Vote Leave platform - they want to make it look like they've got support on both left and right.
That is quite interesting, but it does work on the assumption that politicians are experts. There are no particular credentials required to be an MP, either in theory or in practice, and I wouldn't trust a politician to know anything more about a political matter than someone off the street with a few hours spent Googling. Well, some politicians obviously have expertise in some areas, but there's no all-round expertise certainly.Heather Styles wrote:The Betfair odds look good for Remain. As long as enough people do vote, I'm still pretty confident of a win for Remain. I'm looking forward to the referendum thing being over, though - to be honest, I'm not sure one should even have been called in the first place. This by David Mitchell is quite interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-mitchell
True, but politicians are at least paid to look into this kind of things, and have people who are (hopefully) experts paid to advise them, so they will have some advantages.Gavin Chipper wrote:That is quite interesting, but it does work on the assumption that politicians are experts. There are no particular credentials required to be an MP, either in theory or in practice, and I wouldn't trust a politician to know anything more about a political matter than someone off the street with a few hours spent Googling. Well, some politicians obviously have expertise in some areas, but there's no all-round expertise certainly.Heather Styles wrote:The Betfair odds look good for Remain. As long as enough people do vote, I'm still pretty confident of a win for Remain. I'm looking forward to the referendum thing being over, though - to be honest, I'm not sure one should even have been called in the first place. This by David Mitchell is quite interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-mitchell
I'm not. I have a deep distrust of politicians who refuse to listen to the people because the people aren't clever enough.Heather Styles wrote:True - I suppose an MP with expertise in formerly being a businessman, for example, doesn't necessarily have any other expertise. I'm still cross with Cameron, though, for not showing more backbone as a leader and saving us the rigmarole of this referendum.
As long as you all understand that Cameron only promised this referendum to avoid losing votes to UKIP*, not for any "greater good".David Roe wrote:I'm not. I have a deep distrust of politicians who refuse to listen to the people because the people aren't clever enough.Heather Styles wrote:True - I suppose an MP with expertise in formerly being a businessman, for example, doesn't necessarily have any other expertise. I'm still cross with Cameron, though, for not showing more backbone as a leader and saving us the rigmarole of this referendum.
It's now more like 72/28 so going back towards remain.Gavin Chipper wrote:Using the Betfair odds, the implied probability of remaining in the EU is now just under 2/3, and the implied probability of leaving just over 1/3.
I agree. Cameron's reason for wanting to be Prime Minister is because he thinks it's best for him. The country comes very much second (if at all) in his reckoning. Blair was the same.Gavin Chipper wrote:As long as you all understand that Cameron only promised this referendum to avoid losing votes to UKIP*, not for any "greater good".David Roe wrote:I'm not. I have a deep distrust of politicians who refuse to listen to the people because the people aren't clever enough.Heather Styles wrote:True - I suppose an MP with expertise in formerly being a businessman, for example, doesn't necessarily have any other expertise. I'm still cross with Cameron, though, for not showing more backbone as a leader and saving us the rigmarole of this referendum.
*Some people say it was to appease the anti-EU MPs in his own party, but I doubt that had anything to do with it. He wanted to win an election. That's the beginning and end of it.
I've not read the article, but it's my understanding that the referendum isn't at all legally binding. However, I'd think it highly unlikely that a government could survive for long by ignoring one, especially a government with such a small margin. It would be fascinating if one managed to do that though!Heather Styles wrote:Yeah, not liking the leave campaign seems a pretty lame reason to cite for shifting sides. I haven't liked all aspects of the remain campaign, by any means, but that's irrelevant to my decision to vote remain.
Interesting blog post here on whether the government could legally disregard a vote for Brexit. It seems that they could, and rightly so, in my opinion. I think it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the government to decide on this - not because they are any cleverer or better informed than we are, but because it's the kind of thing that we elect and pay them to do.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2 ... or-brexit/
They couldn't justify going against it without admitting that they were completely wrong in calling a referendum in the first place.Ian Volante wrote:I've not read the article, but it's my understanding that the referendum isn't at all legally binding. However, I'd think it highly unlikely that a government could survive for long by ignoring one, especially a government with such a small margin. It would be fascinating if one managed to do that though!Heather Styles wrote:Yeah, not liking the leave campaign seems a pretty lame reason to cite for shifting sides. I haven't liked all aspects of the remain campaign, by any means, but that's irrelevant to my decision to vote remain.
Interesting blog post here on whether the government could legally disregard a vote for Brexit. It seems that they could, and rightly so, in my opinion. I think it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the government to decide on this - not because they are any cleverer or better informed than we are, but because it's the kind of thing that we elect and pay them to do.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2 ... or-brexit/
Wasn't it Sunderland?Ian Volante wrote:So, the bookies made an arse of it then? I did think of chucking a few quid at leave after the Newcastle result.
Nope! Newcastle only just voted remain when they were predicting an easy win.Gavin Chipper wrote:Wasn't it Sunderland?Ian Volante wrote:So, the bookies made an arse of it then? I did think of chucking a few quid at leave after the Newcastle result.
I managed to avoid a catastrophic night of gambling by jumping on 5-1 for Brexit at that point. I had a load on 54.5%+ on remain, which was evens for the last few days. I think shortly after Farage's near-concession around 10pm the price for Brexit was in double figures. Some real money was probably made on that..Ian Volante wrote:Nope! Newcastle only just voted remain when they were predicting an easy win.Gavin Chipper wrote:Wasn't it Sunderland?Ian Volante wrote:So, the bookies made an arse of it then? I did think of chucking a few quid at leave after the Newcastle result.
With gags like that, you should be a stand-up comic! etc. etc.Gavin Chipper wrote:Also, while it would have been nice to have a "Lexit", with our government what we've really got is a "Rexit", and with Boris Johnson potentially in charge of the country, I wouldn't be surprised if he wrecks it.
But London/Newcastle/your house don't have significant independence movements. Scotland may have voted to stay in the UK in 2014, but the UK's definite EU membership and economic stability were given as major reasons why people should vote to stay, as Scotland had no definite guarantee that they would be accepted by the EU as an independent state. Now we're leaving and there are predictions of a recession to come, many people who voted to stay part of the UK have changed their minds. Some may change back, but even if exit negotiations are smooth, I think Scotland's done with the UK. Would be interesting to see if Scotland could sell itself as a new location for EU-minded companies who want to relocate their offices from London. (Semi-unrelatedly - Scots, do you think the Tories' resurgence in Scotland is solely a Ruth Davidson effect, or is there just generally less animosity towards the Tory party than I thought there was in Scotland?)Gavin Chipper wrote:Another reason for voting to stay that I don't think has come up too much in this thread is Scotland.
Nicola Sturgeon has said it's "democratically unacceptable" to make Scotland leave the EU. Is it though? There are lots of areas in England where the majority voted to stay in. So is it democratically unacceptable to make them leave as well? As things stand, Scotland is part of the UK just the same as London, Newcastle and my house. And we voted as the UK.
Ruth Davidson certainly has a considerable amount of personal appeal (and the Scottish Conservatives' fairly successful efforts to create a distinction between themselves and the UK party must surely have helped) but I think a lot of it's just the passage of time. It's not like there's ever been much of a shortage of right-leaning voters in Scotland, but the Tory vote was sharply suppressed in recent times by Thatcher-era memories and stigma which are becoming less and less relevant to the conversation.Jennifer Steadman wrote:(Semi-unrelatedly - Scots, do you think the Tories' resurgence in Scotland is solely a Ruth Davidson effect, or is there just generally less animosity towards the Tory party than I thought there was in Scotland?)
If there's good reason to believe the opinion of the population will have changed on an issue, can you really say it's more 'democratic' to refuse them a chance to express this?Rhys Benjamin wrote:In both Scotland and the EU, I am against the sequel referenda, as I think that to keep referendumming until you get the "right" result is undemocratic.
It will be a bit strange and indeed quite sad if we leave the EU and then lose Scotland and Northern Ireland in one fell swoop. The United Kingdom of England and Wales. Hmm. Actually Innis, if you do go for independence do you want to take our monarchy with you? I think the United Republic of England and Wales would be preferable. If we're going to have big changes to how the UK is run, we might as well fuck off the monarchy while we're at it. Oh, and introduce proportional representation.Innis Carson wrote:Ruth Davidson certainly has a considerable amount of personal appeal (and the Scottish Conservatives' fairly successful efforts to create a distinction between themselves and the UK party must surely have helped) but I think a lot of it's just the passage of time. It's not like there's ever been much of a shortage of right-leaning voters in Scotland, but the Tory vote was sharply suppressed in recent times by Thatcher-era memories and stigma which are becoming less and less relevant to the conversation.Jennifer Steadman wrote:(Semi-unrelatedly - Scots, do you think the Tories' resurgence in Scotland is solely a Ruth Davidson effect, or is there just generally less animosity towards the Tory party than I thought there was in Scotland?)
And I agree with you on the independence point - it's anecdotal, but I've been hearing loads of people who voted No in the independence referendum say they've changed their minds now, including some prominent figures like J. K. Rowling. That certainly suggests that the endlessly-repeated (and now laughable) notion that voting to stay in the UK was the only way to ensure continued EU membership was a major selling point in the campaign, which at the very least in spirit calls the democratic mandate for Scotland to leave the EU into question.
It'll be interesting to see which side the moneyed interests fall on in a second independence referendum - last time they were almost unanimously in favour of staying in the UK, but it seems unlikely that it'd be quite such a clear-cut divide this time round, and if the Scottish government can get some kind of assurance that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU again, it wouldn't surprise me if the situation is reversed. It's perhaps unfortunate that this should make a substantial difference to the outcome of a democratic vote, but I think it probably would. Think we could be in for a very different story this time.
Steady on!Clive Brooker wrote:Putting the two together, is it time for the Conservative party to do the honest thing and make its final split, the two factions becoming the basis for the two dominant parties going forwards?
Aye, that's a bit much!Gavin Chipper wrote:Steady on!Clive Brooker wrote:Putting the two together, is it time for the Conservative party to do the honest thing and make its final split, the two factions becoming the basis for the two dominant parties going forwards?
So, in other words, reuse the longest suicide note in history?JimBentley wrote:Aye, that's a bit much!Gavin Chipper wrote:Steady on!Clive Brooker wrote:Putting the two together, is it time for the Conservative party to do the honest thing and make its final split, the two factions becoming the basis for the two dominant parties going forwards?
However, the idea of a General Election later on this year is a very attractive one as (presumably) it wouldn't give the Tories enough time to push through their gerrymandering boundary reforms? If so, I think if Labour ran on a manifesto including the introduction of Proportional Representation (with an informal arrangement with other sympathetic parties for some sort of post-election coalition) combined with a commitment to overturn the referendum result, it could prove to be an interesting result.
Really though? I think a lot of people didn't like being put in the position of having decide which outcome would be better on such a complex issue. Some people genuinely didn't know which way to vote. Some people were strongly remain, some strongly exit, and if these positions are both reasonable, then why not anywhere along the continuum, including "unsure"? I don't think people should vote just for the sake of it, although people who didn't have an opinion purely because they couldn't be bothered to look into the pros and cons is a bit poor. I think people should research the issues, but "undecided" is a valid outcome from that.Heather Styles wrote:(At this point, I anticipate someone jumping up and trying to defend why they didn't vote even though they were eligible - I'm afraid I will struggle to find anything polite to say in response to that.)
I'm unsure what you're getting at here, Rhys. Nothing I proposed above bears any relation to the so-called "longest suicide note in history". In fact, didn't part of that manifesto commit to a withdrawal from the (then) EEC?Rhys Benjamin wrote:So, in other words, reuse the longest suicide note in history?JimBentley wrote:However, the idea of a General Election later on this year is a very attractive one as (presumably) it wouldn't give the Tories enough time to push through their gerrymandering boundary reforms? If so, I think if Labour ran on a manifesto including the introduction of Proportional Representation (with an informal arrangement with other sympathetic parties for some sort of post-election coalition) combined with a commitment to overturn the referendum result, it could prove to be an interesting result.
I'd agree that most people who don't vote haven't done so because they haven't made the effort.Heather Styles wrote:As you'll see, I've toned down what I said slightly.
I didn't really like being put in that position, either, but I do think that if at all possible, eligible voters should vote. What I did was to identify some things that I care about (I chose the environment and the Northern Ireland peace process) and make my mind up on the basis of how those things would be affected by our remaining in/leaving the EU. I largely ignored the mainstream media coverage, which I mainly found to be needlessly confrontational and unhelpful, and voted with the courage of my convictions. I commend this to people as a way to try to make a difficult voting decision. If it genuinely is 'undecided' after all that soul-searching, then fair enough, but I don't think this applies to the majority of non-voters.