shurlock

Again not a shred of evidence for half of these claims. You do realise that the "embarrassing declaration" is specifically aimed at post-truth yokels like yourself who resort to playing the man (as you've predictably done on this thread) rather than the ball because they're hopelessly out of the depth on the substance.

Regarding the report Rinse and repeat: "The Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) is a politically independent Research Centre at the London School of Economics. The CEP has no institutional views, only those of its individual researchers. Professor John Van Reenen, who was CEP's director from 2003 to the summer of 2016, did not (and does not) support joining the Euro. CEP's Brexit work is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. As a whole the CEP, receives less than 5% of its funding from the European Union. The EU funding is from the European Research Council for academic projects and not for general funding or consultancy". In the other corner we have Guido's blog and Migration Watch Pathetic.

You're making a fool of yourself and becoming a parody of baldrick. Surprise, surprise, that source is factually incorrect. As a case in point, the IFS does not receive funding from the European Commission but from the European Research Council, an arms-length, independent body which funds cutting-edge academic research -and is one of the ways in which the UK's budget contribution is used. Indeed May expressed her hope that collaboration in the area of scientific research would continue, testimony to the value it generates. Either way, it forms only a small part of the IFS income. Try and learn the difference between research and policy.

No. How does being associated with IZA and Bruegel make someone an EU stakeholder? This is bizarre as well as sinister. For that matter why does advising the European Commission on technical matters of competition policy show anything other than the individual is a leader in his field. I respect research that has to pass the highest standards of quality control, not least because findings of bias would destroy an academic's reputation. Unlike Migration Watch numbers which have been found to be pure bunkum.

Les - having narrowed the definition of infrastructure to exclude unhelpful contradictory evidence you then go on and misread -or at least misrepresent the passage in question Bravo

Eh? Apart from being factually incorrect, that shows nothing, unlike Migration Watch's numbers that have been shown to be bunkum. Keep up with the f**kwittery - you're giving Baldrick a run for his money.

No worse they peddled myth the UK could still enjoy the benefits of membership by being out. That there was no trade-off. If it was a contract, it would be rescinded for misrepresentation. Keep trying to have your cake.

Deja vu pal. Can you provide unambiguous quotes from the leave side stating that leaving the EU definitely meant leaving the single market -and more importantly that the UK would lose the benefits of membership by leaving the EU. Keep trying to have your cake and eat it.

http://www.imf.org/~/media/files/publications/spillovernotes/spillovernote8

Les, old boy, who cleans your bottom and prepares your medicine?

No they wouldn't say that. I take it that you don't have an answer. Let's see: the top academic economist in the country vs. a shoddy thinktank whose made-up numbers have been repeatedly reported to the Press Complaints Commission.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf - pages 13-14. I've cited it before - alas the collective intelligence of the brexit camp on here struggled to muster a response

The evidence suggests otherwise: EU migrants put in more than they take out. The NHS crisis has virtually nothing to do with EU migration. Can't wait to see who you blame once the EU bogeyman disappears.

Basic economics not a forte, I see. It depends on whether migrants pay more in taxes than they take out in welfare and the use of public services. There is no automatic reason why they should put more pressure on public services.

Precisely. The leave campaign excelled in strategic ambiguity. It's also the reason why brexiters on here almost always cite Cameron whenever this question arises.

What is an EU nationalist? Christ you haven't got a clue.

And? Just more evidence that the leave campaign was trying to be all things to all people. See Hannan's mea culpa on Newsnight. For a proposition that was supposedly clear-cut, all I see is repeated evasion and qualifications. Just like the lies about £350m for the NHS, posters linking the migrant crisis to the EU, NHS logos on publicity material, claims Turkey's looming membership. The list goes on pal. Read Shipman's book: the leave campaign knew it was being loose with truth but the truth was less important than message discipline and being wilfully provocative to dictate the news cycle.

Needless to say, LD is being convenient with the truth. The idea that voters were under no doubt about the terms and consequences of a 'leave' vote i.e. leaving the EU meant unambiguously leaving the single market to is horse**** . If it was crystal-clear, leading members of the leave campaign certainly did their best to muddy matters. Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market Daniel Hannan MEP Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing Nigel Farage, Ukip leader The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder Only a madman would actually leave the market Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

Clean, hard whatever - all speak to the idea that there is a spectrum of options which require different levels of compromise on dimensions of market access, free movement and other areas involving trade-offs. https://www.ft.com/content/d67557f8-dca3-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6 The hardest of hard Brexits is a default reversion to WTO rules (to the extent that's actually permissible).

Paul Nuttall already threatening Parliament and the Lords should they vote down the final deal, even though we don't yet know its contents or whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' deal. Of course, the alternative -should the deal be rejected- is likely to the hardest of hard Brexits. Les, Baldrick, GM et al. levels of fanaticism right there.

The club should take a leaf out of your book. I doubt your cupboard is ever bare.

Global Britain = The UK as a minimal regulation, free trade nirvana - that's exactly what leave voters in the north and old manufacturing towns had in mind. Boris Johnson and William Rees-Mogg, those well-known champions of the people, must be chortling into their Pimms at the stitch-up they're attempting to pull off. Trump, in comparison, almost seems honest.

The same influential JWP who when push came to shove was dropped/subbed from the U21s side that participated in the 2015 European Championships, his only major tournament?

Why's that Les? Today will be May's last chance to spout meaningless Brexiter dribble "we want to be global", "we want a constructive relationship" "we want the best deal for Britain". It's now time to deliver. Please try not to s**t the bed as you finally have to face up to some hard choices and their consequences.