shurlock

The TUC bird does herself no favours by resembling an ungainlier version of Miranda.

Dont worry Tony Parsons is going to save proceedings

No problem.

Eh? It was part of the same response. The line literally followed the Cameron reference. Hence I said then.

That's what I meant - landed it flush on weak-chinned boris.

Andrea looks like she hides a shady past of wife-swapping.

Then got the loudest applause of the evening.

Much like boris. All of the time.

Virtually every professional investor has linked recent market volatility to the rising fear of brexit; but heigh ho they all have agendas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/14/ftse-100-slides-towards-6000-and-pound-falls-as-brexit-fears-dri/

I said from around June 9/10. If you don't think the momentum has been with the Leave campaign, you've had your head buried in the sand. The Brexit poll tracker speaks volumes, showing Leave overtaking Remain for the first time over this period. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-watch/

No. Neil's question was horribly muddled and should have been swatted away with aplomb by Vaisey for the reasons I pointed out above.

Les: the IFS predicts a hit to the public finances of between £20 billion and £40 billion in 2019–20 due to Brexit. Even if measures to address that hole might not be taken if the country entered a recession, they would still have to be taken at some point. That hole isn't going to magically disappear. The question thus remains: would you prefer Brexit-induced spending cuts or tax increases. Pick your poison. Indeed there is something tragically ironic about you giddily citing Andrew Neil, though the irony is doubtless lost on you. After all it's precisely the swivel-eyed loons -perhaps you included- that were calling for austerity and living within our means when the economy was spluttering back in 2010 and 2011. Now all of a sudden austerity is bad and no 'single economist would support it. Can't make this **** it up pal.

Disagree. Criticisms about his passing are lazy and overdone. Notwithstanding his lack of pace, he's able to bring the ball forward and rarely loses it. He's been inconsistent this season -though again that criticism is overdone and omits he hasn't had a consistent midfield partner. We have struggled without him, so there's no reason to think that will change going forward. Can safely say now that if we successfully replace him for £11m, that will be the signing of the summer.

The FTSE fell by 400 points from around June 9/10, coinciding with a slew of polls putting leave ahead, planting uncertainty in investors minds. Even the notoriously insular Federal Reserve mentioned brexit uncertainty as a factor in not putting up US interest rates which in other circumstances would be a good thing for markets. Yesterday's rebound and rise in the sterling -the biggest one-day gain in 7 years- has been widely attributed to the belief over the weekend that notwithstanding leave's recent momentum remain will pip it. So yes pal it has had an effect. Of course, were leave to actually win it, the effects would make recent volatility look like a few ripples on a summer's lake. Even brexiters don't deny otherwise.

Les, you've constantly repeated the message while listening to all of the arguments, how does that work, pal?

9.8/10

Dear god, les you could have done much better than citing Peter Lilley As it stands: The UK currently exports more to Ireland than China and HK combined. FACT Only nine percent of UK exports go to the seven largest emerging economies. FACT Still, in the deluded brexiter world, the UK will 'do a Canada' and/or rely on WTO rules to access European and other markets. The vain hope that it can cut and paste its former EU-negotiated trade deals has been effectively dismissed by the WTO Director-General FWIW. As such, the UK would have to negotiate thousands of tariffs covering its entire trade portfolio and lose preferential access to 58 countries covered by those EU-negotiated deals - tantamount to £9bn of additional tariffs on goods imports to UK consumers and a £5bn tariff on British exports at destination. Even assuming the UK can overcome all this, the WTO (or even the Canadian deal with the EU for that matter) doesn't cover most services, an area in which the UK enjoys a comparative advantage and consistently runs a trade surplus. Still it is not as deluded as your whopper that the UK will strike bilateral trade deals in double-quick time because of "shared language and culture". The likes of the US, India and China are negotiating new deals with the EU and for the foreseeable future couldn't give two s**ts about a market of 65 million consumers compared to the EU's 500 million. Or at least won't move until the UK clarifies its trade relationship with the EU. Despite your blabbering about selfish interests, there is a reason why negotiations with the likes of China and other emerging economies take time. Trade negotiations are inherently complex -as the WTO DG points out merely adjusting members’ existing terms can often take several years to complete - in some cases up to 10 years. With politically and institutionally opaque economies like China that are home to all kinds of trade distortions, the challenges of securing a level playing field are compounded. Never mind the bargaining power that comes with negotiating en masse, unlike the pretty friendly -and some one would say one-sided deals that China has been able to strike when negotiating bilaterally. But hey the UK is special and different, aint she pal.

Remind me how much trade the UK does with the big emerging economies of the world? You've not got a clue, Les.

Have we had our pants pulled down again pal?

edit

Not quite the footballing equivalent of Tago Mago [iNSERT ANY OTHER RANDOM HIPSTER ALBUM], is it?

You'll remember the tories raised VAT to 20% in 2010 in order to balance the books. A combination of additional spending cuts, tax increases and higher borrowing costs- pick your poison.

How about the additional tax increases/spending cuts to plug the £20-40bn hole in the public finances the IFS predicts from any Brexit?

Good one Les. If you read the underlying paper pal, you'll note the authors report only a 5% probability that their results on immigration/reduced waiting times to see a doctor are due to random chance -and that's even after using a battery of sophisticated techniques to show causal effects (rather than simple correlation). But hey you "may" be a bit dim.