UK EU Referendum Thoughts
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
- Status
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/f7f1ae1e-228a-11e6-aa98-db1e01fabc0c.html#axzz49s2qIbcL
It links to these, which I haven't actually read
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/...britain-eu-sovereignty-myth-niblett-final.pdf
http://ner.sagepub.com/content/236/1/7.full.pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/oct/19/simon-hix-is-the-uk-marginalised-in-the-eu
It links to these, which I haven't actually read
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/...britain-eu-sovereignty-myth-niblett-final.pdf
http://ner.sagepub.com/content/236/1/7.full.pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/oct/19/simon-hix-is-the-uk-marginalised-in-the-eu
Woebot
Well-known member
alan sugar from behind the times firewall
SATURDAY INTERVIEW
‘Boris and this Gove fellow? They’ve never been in business in their life’
Lord Sugar, the new enterprise tsar, is in typically withering form over the Brexit team’s vision for Britain
‘With the greatest respect . . . ” and you know that Lord Sugar is about to deal a hammer blow to some unsuspecting soul. “With greatest respect,” he says, “and maybe I’m a bit thick, but who is this Gove bloke? Perhaps you could enlighten me on who he was or what he did.”
Or: “I have a lot of respect for Boris, though we all thought he was a bit of a clown when he got the job as mayor . . . but you’ve got to wonder whether his heart is really in Britain or whether his heart is in looking to be the next prime minister. You asked me why I think these high-level people are backing this Brexit thing and I think, with all due respect, they have their own personal agenda.”
The Hackney-born electronics mogul, husband of Ann, father of three, resident of Chigwell in Essex, worth an estimated £1.1 billion, has surprisingly just been appointed as a government enterprise tsar. Or rather, re-appointed. He knows the role; he’s been one before, under Labour. But he quit the party after it lost the election last year, citing its all-round unenterprising attitude. There is something a bit desperate, though, about the Conservatives rehiring him, as if the root of our manufacturing woes can be traced to the lack of successful businessmen with reality TV franchises jobbing as government advisers. It seems doubly desperate when you look at how bitchy relations between David Cameron and Lord Sugar have been.
In 2009 Mr Cameron said: “I can’t bear Alan Sugar,” and added that he equally loathed The Apprentice. “I’m glad he can’t bear me,” the peer replied, “Perhaps he will stop asking people to sound me out if I want to meet him and defect to his party.”
He had already written off the future prime minister as a two-faced lightweight. Now it is Labour he has written off. “The party should never allow itself to be associated with Ken Livingstone. He’s become obsessed with talking about Hitler. I think his bedside reading is Mein Kampf.”
In any case, Lord Sugar’s aims for Britain are clear, and shot through with the disbelief evident on The Apprentice. “We’ve got to deal with apprenticeships for young people and find them jobs. We’ve got to create a culture about their work ethic and we’ve got to manufacture some more stuff — desperately.” All easy enough if he were in charge in place of “the bloody wimpy goody-goodies”.
Will the wimps take any notice? Ministers have a habit of ignoring their tsars, from Mary Portas to Sir James Dyson, soon after posing for the political money-shot. Like previous holders of the title, Lord Sugar has the common touch, being far more popular than any politician.
We’ve got to create a culture about their work ethic and we’ve got to manufacture some more stuff — desperately
So there must be something in it for him. Given the timing and his passion about staying in Europe, it seems likely that he is going to use the platform to do everything he can to stop Britain leaving. Mr Cameron, for example, is retweeting anything his enterprise tsar says on the subject.
“This is literally the most serious vote you’ll ever make,” Lord Sugar says (Cameron has retweeted that pearl). “This is not a general election where you vote every five years.” Voting to leave Europe, would be, he says, “like watching your children walk off to a stranger’s house”.
He is concerned that the immigration debate has been muddied by the Brexiteers to confuse voters and compares their “scare tactics” to Donald Trump’s. “Trump says things like, ‘I’m going to curb immigration,’ ‘I’m going to build walls,’ and in a similar vein, when you make broad statements in our country like the exit people are doing, it does touch a nerve with the public and confuses them.”
He’s worried that the electorate is especially muddled about the number of refugees from outside Europe. “When the exit people say we need to cut immigration, the public think they’re talking about Syrian refugees. But that’s nothing to do with the EU.”
Brexiteers claim that leaving means being able to secure better deals with countries such as China and India. “Really? I don’t know what’s stopping us doing that now,” he replies.
“I’ve lived here 69 years. And I’m frightened. There could be half the population that believe in this nonsense.”
It is better, he insists, to have a seat at the table; that leaving Europe would mean being slapped with the enormous tariffs he’s old enough to remember when he was selling to the French before Britain joined. His is an economic argument: “We have 500 million consumers out there that we can freely trade with and they’re our business customer.”
Not that he expects Boris and co to grasp this truth. “In fairness,” he says, priming himself for another take-down, “people like Boris and this Gove fellow have never been in business in their life. Never actually done any import or export. That’s what makes me laugh. They just fire out statistics in mid air. It’s total nonsense. And my message to the public is, go ask them. Please ask Boris. Please ask this Mr Gove. ‘I want you to explain to me in language my taxi driver can understand what you’re talking about.’ And of course they shy off that.”
If Mr Cameron had hoped that the enterprise role would get Lord Sugar “on board” in a wider sense, he is wrong. Possibly only the peer’s wife escapes his trademark excoriations. The cabinet, this one just like the Labour lot, are “all bloody wimpy”.
“We’re too goody-goody,” he says. “We should find ways and learn from our French cousins on how to dodge the rules.”
The crisis at Scunthorpe steelworks appalled him. “I fly around the country and I see these windmills out at sea, all over the place. They are made of steel. Yeah? And yet the contract for them was awarded to foreign companies. And that’s what doesn’t make sense. They can make a steel windmill frame up North with their eyes closed.”
You can’t be so frightened of breaking the rules, right?
The problem is rules. “With the greatest respect to the prime minister I don’t think he was tough enough in the last round [of EU negotiations] . . . our French cousins have an amazing way of interpreting the rules, that turns out always to benefit their own people. In England we stick to the rules and we end up awarding these things to foreign companies. It’s not just this government, it’s the previous one. They’re bloody wimpy. Break the rules!”
Rule-breaking goes like this, for any politician reading: “You can’t be so frightened of breaking the rules, right? So they should wake up on a Monday morning and get involved in all the major contracts — a load of them have been handed down by the government, by the way — and say, ‘We want to prioritise a British manufacturer, for employment in this country. And you get some jobsworth in Biz who says, ‘Ooh, we can’t really do that because under section 5 paragraph blah di blah . . .’ Sod that. We’re gonna do it. ‘Well we can’t do that because we’re going to get nicked.’ Yeah, well, let’s get on with it, and we’ll face the consequences.”
The British work ethic is another cause for concern. “I popped in to Harrods for a coffee. Not one of the waiters or waitresses was what I call a traditional English person. They were Europeans, and one has to ask, why? Well, with the greatest respect to some of our traditional English youngsters, they see that type of work as beneath them. Let’s say you go to one of these economy hotels, — £50 a night — go and look at who’s cleaning the loos. Again, it is European people. Traditional English people don’t want those jobs.”
Three years ago he wrote an angry article about migrants on benefits. Now, he says, he is satisfied that the problem is under control. Among foreigners, at least. “You’ve got certain people — what I would call traditional English people — who think to themselves, ‘What should I do that for? I can collect £250 a week from the social security.’ You think that’s going to change if we leave the EU? No!”
Claims of foreigners stealing British jobs annoy him. “I’d like to throw it back to the exit people and say, ‘Which particular jobs are you referring to?’ No one wants to clean the loos, not for 250 quid. So who are they going to replace all the Romanians and the Polish people with? It’s certainly not skilled and technical jobs they’re stealing. We need immigrants. And, by the way let’s not forget they pay tax, also.”
To the Brexiteers who say they want to make Britain great again, he says: “That sounds good to me. Well, tell me what you want to do? Do you want to be the biggest car manufacturer again? Do you want to be at the forefront in medicine again?” He brings the imaginary dialogue to a crescendo. “Tell. Me. What. You’re. Talking. About.”
But why should we listen to Sugar? “Dare I ask you to accept,” he says, “that I am passionate about the country and want it to prosper still?”
SATURDAY INTERVIEW
‘Boris and this Gove fellow? They’ve never been in business in their life’
Lord Sugar, the new enterprise tsar, is in typically withering form over the Brexit team’s vision for Britain
‘With the greatest respect . . . ” and you know that Lord Sugar is about to deal a hammer blow to some unsuspecting soul. “With greatest respect,” he says, “and maybe I’m a bit thick, but who is this Gove bloke? Perhaps you could enlighten me on who he was or what he did.”
Or: “I have a lot of respect for Boris, though we all thought he was a bit of a clown when he got the job as mayor . . . but you’ve got to wonder whether his heart is really in Britain or whether his heart is in looking to be the next prime minister. You asked me why I think these high-level people are backing this Brexit thing and I think, with all due respect, they have their own personal agenda.”
The Hackney-born electronics mogul, husband of Ann, father of three, resident of Chigwell in Essex, worth an estimated £1.1 billion, has surprisingly just been appointed as a government enterprise tsar. Or rather, re-appointed. He knows the role; he’s been one before, under Labour. But he quit the party after it lost the election last year, citing its all-round unenterprising attitude. There is something a bit desperate, though, about the Conservatives rehiring him, as if the root of our manufacturing woes can be traced to the lack of successful businessmen with reality TV franchises jobbing as government advisers. It seems doubly desperate when you look at how bitchy relations between David Cameron and Lord Sugar have been.
In 2009 Mr Cameron said: “I can’t bear Alan Sugar,” and added that he equally loathed The Apprentice. “I’m glad he can’t bear me,” the peer replied, “Perhaps he will stop asking people to sound me out if I want to meet him and defect to his party.”
He had already written off the future prime minister as a two-faced lightweight. Now it is Labour he has written off. “The party should never allow itself to be associated with Ken Livingstone. He’s become obsessed with talking about Hitler. I think his bedside reading is Mein Kampf.”
In any case, Lord Sugar’s aims for Britain are clear, and shot through with the disbelief evident on The Apprentice. “We’ve got to deal with apprenticeships for young people and find them jobs. We’ve got to create a culture about their work ethic and we’ve got to manufacture some more stuff — desperately.” All easy enough if he were in charge in place of “the bloody wimpy goody-goodies”.
Will the wimps take any notice? Ministers have a habit of ignoring their tsars, from Mary Portas to Sir James Dyson, soon after posing for the political money-shot. Like previous holders of the title, Lord Sugar has the common touch, being far more popular than any politician.
We’ve got to create a culture about their work ethic and we’ve got to manufacture some more stuff — desperately
So there must be something in it for him. Given the timing and his passion about staying in Europe, it seems likely that he is going to use the platform to do everything he can to stop Britain leaving. Mr Cameron, for example, is retweeting anything his enterprise tsar says on the subject.
“This is literally the most serious vote you’ll ever make,” Lord Sugar says (Cameron has retweeted that pearl). “This is not a general election where you vote every five years.” Voting to leave Europe, would be, he says, “like watching your children walk off to a stranger’s house”.
He is concerned that the immigration debate has been muddied by the Brexiteers to confuse voters and compares their “scare tactics” to Donald Trump’s. “Trump says things like, ‘I’m going to curb immigration,’ ‘I’m going to build walls,’ and in a similar vein, when you make broad statements in our country like the exit people are doing, it does touch a nerve with the public and confuses them.”
He’s worried that the electorate is especially muddled about the number of refugees from outside Europe. “When the exit people say we need to cut immigration, the public think they’re talking about Syrian refugees. But that’s nothing to do with the EU.”
Brexiteers claim that leaving means being able to secure better deals with countries such as China and India. “Really? I don’t know what’s stopping us doing that now,” he replies.
“I’ve lived here 69 years. And I’m frightened. There could be half the population that believe in this nonsense.”
It is better, he insists, to have a seat at the table; that leaving Europe would mean being slapped with the enormous tariffs he’s old enough to remember when he was selling to the French before Britain joined. His is an economic argument: “We have 500 million consumers out there that we can freely trade with and they’re our business customer.”
Not that he expects Boris and co to grasp this truth. “In fairness,” he says, priming himself for another take-down, “people like Boris and this Gove fellow have never been in business in their life. Never actually done any import or export. That’s what makes me laugh. They just fire out statistics in mid air. It’s total nonsense. And my message to the public is, go ask them. Please ask Boris. Please ask this Mr Gove. ‘I want you to explain to me in language my taxi driver can understand what you’re talking about.’ And of course they shy off that.”
If Mr Cameron had hoped that the enterprise role would get Lord Sugar “on board” in a wider sense, he is wrong. Possibly only the peer’s wife escapes his trademark excoriations. The cabinet, this one just like the Labour lot, are “all bloody wimpy”.
“We’re too goody-goody,” he says. “We should find ways and learn from our French cousins on how to dodge the rules.”
The crisis at Scunthorpe steelworks appalled him. “I fly around the country and I see these windmills out at sea, all over the place. They are made of steel. Yeah? And yet the contract for them was awarded to foreign companies. And that’s what doesn’t make sense. They can make a steel windmill frame up North with their eyes closed.”
You can’t be so frightened of breaking the rules, right?
The problem is rules. “With the greatest respect to the prime minister I don’t think he was tough enough in the last round [of EU negotiations] . . . our French cousins have an amazing way of interpreting the rules, that turns out always to benefit their own people. In England we stick to the rules and we end up awarding these things to foreign companies. It’s not just this government, it’s the previous one. They’re bloody wimpy. Break the rules!”
Rule-breaking goes like this, for any politician reading: “You can’t be so frightened of breaking the rules, right? So they should wake up on a Monday morning and get involved in all the major contracts — a load of them have been handed down by the government, by the way — and say, ‘We want to prioritise a British manufacturer, for employment in this country. And you get some jobsworth in Biz who says, ‘Ooh, we can’t really do that because under section 5 paragraph blah di blah . . .’ Sod that. We’re gonna do it. ‘Well we can’t do that because we’re going to get nicked.’ Yeah, well, let’s get on with it, and we’ll face the consequences.”
The British work ethic is another cause for concern. “I popped in to Harrods for a coffee. Not one of the waiters or waitresses was what I call a traditional English person. They were Europeans, and one has to ask, why? Well, with the greatest respect to some of our traditional English youngsters, they see that type of work as beneath them. Let’s say you go to one of these economy hotels, — £50 a night — go and look at who’s cleaning the loos. Again, it is European people. Traditional English people don’t want those jobs.”
Three years ago he wrote an angry article about migrants on benefits. Now, he says, he is satisfied that the problem is under control. Among foreigners, at least. “You’ve got certain people — what I would call traditional English people — who think to themselves, ‘What should I do that for? I can collect £250 a week from the social security.’ You think that’s going to change if we leave the EU? No!”
Claims of foreigners stealing British jobs annoy him. “I’d like to throw it back to the exit people and say, ‘Which particular jobs are you referring to?’ No one wants to clean the loos, not for 250 quid. So who are they going to replace all the Romanians and the Polish people with? It’s certainly not skilled and technical jobs they’re stealing. We need immigrants. And, by the way let’s not forget they pay tax, also.”
To the Brexiteers who say they want to make Britain great again, he says: “That sounds good to me. Well, tell me what you want to do? Do you want to be the biggest car manufacturer again? Do you want to be at the forefront in medicine again?” He brings the imaginary dialogue to a crescendo. “Tell. Me. What. You’re. Talking. About.”
But why should we listen to Sugar? “Dare I ask you to accept,” he says, “that I am passionate about the country and want it to prosper still?”
Woebot
Well-known member
"Claims that house prices would be hit have encouraged some first-time buyers but Osborne said any gains would be more than offset by rising mortgage costs, which would add between £810 and £1,280 to the costs for the average first-time buyer. “You don’t help people onto the housing ladder by crashing the economy.”
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
A rather telling quote from the FT; indicative of the big problem with the leave campaign:
Michael Gove has refused to name any economists who back Britain’s exit from the European Union, saying that “people in this country have had enough of experts”.
Michael Gove has refused to name any economists who back Britain’s exit from the European Union, saying that “people in this country have had enough of experts”.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well if anyone knows a thing or two about crashing economies, it's Osborne. But I think he is probably right on this count.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Opinion polls show that the remain camp has lost 4 percentage points in two weeks:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/04/poll-eu-brexit-lead-opinium
Over this same period:
Results were released from an “unprecedented” survey of 639 members of the Royal Economic Society and the Society of Business Economists. The survey found:
1) 72% thought it the most likely outcome would be a negative impact on UK real GDP over the next 10 to 20 years, if the UK left the EU and the single market. This compares with 11% who thought that a positive impact on real GDP would be the most likely outcome.
2) 88% thought it most likely that real GDP would be negatively impacted in the next 5 years, if the UK left the EU and the single market. 4% thought GDP would be positively impacted over the same time period and the 7% thought GDP would be broadly unaffected.
3) Of those stating that a negative impact on GDP in the next 5 years would be most likely, a majority cited loss of access to the single market (67%) and increased uncertainty leading to reduced investment (66%).
4) 73% of respondents thought that real household incomes in the UK would be lower over the next 10 to 20 years, if the UK left the EU and the single market. This compares with 10% who thought that incomes would rise and 13% who thought that incomes would be broadly unaffected.
5) Opinions on the longer term effects on unemployment were more mixed. 45% thought that the UK unemployment rate would be higher over the next 10 to 20 years if the UK left the EU and the single market. However, 33% of respondents felt that the unemployment rate would be broadly unaffected and 17% thought the unemployment rate would be lower.
6) 68% of respondents thought that the UK leaving the EU and the single market would increase the risk of the economy experiencing a serious negative shock. 22% thought it would make no difference and 8% thought it would reduce the risk.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3739/Economists-Views-on-Brexit.aspx
An IFS study has found that leaving Europe would mean two more years of austerity to balance the budget.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8297
The former director-general of the World Trade Organization has stated that leaving Europe will be a “huge blow” to the UK economy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36401578
The Royal College of Physicians, a professional doctors’ body representing 30,000 medics, is supporting remaining in the UK.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/e...thousands-doctors-voice-support-eu-membership
An informal survey of 666 British researchers by the journal Nature found 80% support staying in the EU.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21699504-most-scientists-want-stay-eu-european-experiment
The LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance, the OECD, the Treasury and the IMF have all previously warned of the adverse effects of Britain leaving Europe.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/04/poll-eu-brexit-lead-opinium
Over this same period:
Results were released from an “unprecedented” survey of 639 members of the Royal Economic Society and the Society of Business Economists. The survey found:
1) 72% thought it the most likely outcome would be a negative impact on UK real GDP over the next 10 to 20 years, if the UK left the EU and the single market. This compares with 11% who thought that a positive impact on real GDP would be the most likely outcome.
2) 88% thought it most likely that real GDP would be negatively impacted in the next 5 years, if the UK left the EU and the single market. 4% thought GDP would be positively impacted over the same time period and the 7% thought GDP would be broadly unaffected.
3) Of those stating that a negative impact on GDP in the next 5 years would be most likely, a majority cited loss of access to the single market (67%) and increased uncertainty leading to reduced investment (66%).
4) 73% of respondents thought that real household incomes in the UK would be lower over the next 10 to 20 years, if the UK left the EU and the single market. This compares with 10% who thought that incomes would rise and 13% who thought that incomes would be broadly unaffected.
5) Opinions on the longer term effects on unemployment were more mixed. 45% thought that the UK unemployment rate would be higher over the next 10 to 20 years if the UK left the EU and the single market. However, 33% of respondents felt that the unemployment rate would be broadly unaffected and 17% thought the unemployment rate would be lower.
6) 68% of respondents thought that the UK leaving the EU and the single market would increase the risk of the economy experiencing a serious negative shock. 22% thought it would make no difference and 8% thought it would reduce the risk.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3739/Economists-Views-on-Brexit.aspx
An IFS study has found that leaving Europe would mean two more years of austerity to balance the budget.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8297
The former director-general of the World Trade Organization has stated that leaving Europe will be a “huge blow” to the UK economy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36401578
The Royal College of Physicians, a professional doctors’ body representing 30,000 medics, is supporting remaining in the UK.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/e...thousands-doctors-voice-support-eu-membership
An informal survey of 666 British researchers by the journal Nature found 80% support staying in the EU.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21699504-most-scientists-want-stay-eu-european-experiment
The LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance, the OECD, the Treasury and the IMF have all previously warned of the adverse effects of Britain leaving Europe.
john eden
male pale and stale
Is that £1280 a month, or a one off though? If it's a one off we just need a bigger devaluation than that 10% would do it easy.
Woebot
Well-known member
yeah - i asked him at dinner last night and he wouldn't say
john eden
male pale and stale
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/condorcet-paradox-work-rock-paper-scissors-eu-referendum#.V1aIQZMrIzZ
"... for these purposes the only things that really matter (certainly as far as the vast majority of the electorate is concerned) is that what I will call the "straight Leave" option means both that the UK would no longer be part of the Single Market and that we would no longer have free movement with the rest of the EU; while the Norway option would mean that we would retain both.
The proponents of Brexit, and in particular the Vote Leave campaign, had to choose; which Leave option would they advocate? And they faced a dilemma; as my colleague Matt Goodwin has repeatedly emphasised, the risk to the economy from leaving the EU (and excluding ourselves from the Single Market) is by far Remain's strongest argument; adopting the Norway option might reduce the perceived risk and hence the potency of this issue. But, and ultimately more importantly, immigration and free movement are Leave's trump cards. They have concluded that by adopting the Norway option, or even allowing it to remain on the table, they would be ruling out the only strategy that gives them any chance of success: concentrating almost all their fire on immigration in the last few weeks of the campaign.
Now suppose they are right, and that, in a straight fight, the electorate do indeed prefer "strong Leave" to "Remain". What happens next? This is where the Condorcet Paradox comes in. In this case, it would be up to Parliament (with, quite possibly, a new Prime Minister and other Ministers) to implement Leave. While Parliament and the government would obviously and rightly be bound by the referendum to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU, they wouldn't be bound by anything that Vote Leave had said about how that should be done. With the likelihood of at least some turbulence in financial markets - and, more seriously, with strong pressure from business to resolve the situation in the least destabilising way possible - economic arguments, as well as those of practicality, will come to the fore again.
So, at this point, the Norway option for Leave re-emerges; and, as James Landale reports today, "pro-Remain MPs are considering using their Commons majority to keep Britain inside the EU single market". Would this be defying the will of the electorate? Not obviously; there would likely to be majority support for such a move. Given a decision to Leave, a majority of electorate would probably prefer the Norway option to "straight Leave" (presumably almost all of those who voted Remain, as well as some of those, albeit a minority, who voted Leave). So there would be nothing obviously anti-democratic about Parliament and Whitehall proceeding on this basis.
But the irony, of course, is that given a straight choice - which, in this scenario, they wouldn't have had - a majority of the electorate would probably have preferred Remain to the Norway option; indeed, the considerable polling evidence that they couldn't win on the basis of the Norway option is precisely why Vote Leave chose to rule it out and to focus the campaign on immigration. So the Condorcet cycle is closed; no option is strictly preferred to both the others; and whichever we choose, there's an alternative preferred by a majority of the electorate."
"... for these purposes the only things that really matter (certainly as far as the vast majority of the electorate is concerned) is that what I will call the "straight Leave" option means both that the UK would no longer be part of the Single Market and that we would no longer have free movement with the rest of the EU; while the Norway option would mean that we would retain both.
The proponents of Brexit, and in particular the Vote Leave campaign, had to choose; which Leave option would they advocate? And they faced a dilemma; as my colleague Matt Goodwin has repeatedly emphasised, the risk to the economy from leaving the EU (and excluding ourselves from the Single Market) is by far Remain's strongest argument; adopting the Norway option might reduce the perceived risk and hence the potency of this issue. But, and ultimately more importantly, immigration and free movement are Leave's trump cards. They have concluded that by adopting the Norway option, or even allowing it to remain on the table, they would be ruling out the only strategy that gives them any chance of success: concentrating almost all their fire on immigration in the last few weeks of the campaign.
Now suppose they are right, and that, in a straight fight, the electorate do indeed prefer "strong Leave" to "Remain". What happens next? This is where the Condorcet Paradox comes in. In this case, it would be up to Parliament (with, quite possibly, a new Prime Minister and other Ministers) to implement Leave. While Parliament and the government would obviously and rightly be bound by the referendum to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU, they wouldn't be bound by anything that Vote Leave had said about how that should be done. With the likelihood of at least some turbulence in financial markets - and, more seriously, with strong pressure from business to resolve the situation in the least destabilising way possible - economic arguments, as well as those of practicality, will come to the fore again.
So, at this point, the Norway option for Leave re-emerges; and, as James Landale reports today, "pro-Remain MPs are considering using their Commons majority to keep Britain inside the EU single market". Would this be defying the will of the electorate? Not obviously; there would likely to be majority support for such a move. Given a decision to Leave, a majority of electorate would probably prefer the Norway option to "straight Leave" (presumably almost all of those who voted Remain, as well as some of those, albeit a minority, who voted Leave). So there would be nothing obviously anti-democratic about Parliament and Whitehall proceeding on this basis.
But the irony, of course, is that given a straight choice - which, in this scenario, they wouldn't have had - a majority of the electorate would probably have preferred Remain to the Norway option; indeed, the considerable polling evidence that they couldn't win on the basis of the Norway option is precisely why Vote Leave chose to rule it out and to focus the campaign on immigration. So the Condorcet cycle is closed; no option is strictly preferred to both the others; and whichever we choose, there's an alternative preferred by a majority of the electorate."
What does unnerve me is that gut sense of excitement about voting leave that even I can feel sometimes: the sweeping arguments about legal untangling and the democracy deficit have a basic persuasive pull, and they are serious arguments. I found the Dominic Raab book 'The Assault on Liberty' to be the most persuasive case on these matters. But there are even bigger arguments to consider than even his: a geopolitical abyss, an economic and political chaos that lies ahead if we pull the plug on European integration. It's not just about cheap flights or a hypothetical expansion to the far end of Anatolia.
- Status