But the 1922 committee could accept an anonymous list from Tory MPs asking for a vote of no confidence. Then Cameron would have to wait the outcome of an in house election for him to continue as Tory leader and bye bye if the vote goes against him.

I don't know who would be running the country if this happens though (anyone know?) but of course front runner would be Boris.

So we could get a minority vote government with a leader we didn't elect and the Brexit campaign is based on the British people having control of their laws.

Are you rich? No I mean very, very rich? Then don't vote Conservative.

This sums up politics.

We'll never die

Any working class person who votes remain is literally self harming.

Housing will become more and more difficult.
Low and semi skilled jobs will continually become harder to get.
Service infrastructures will become continually less effective.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 May 2016 7.59am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I suppose working class people don't like

- strict workers rights

- entitled to paid holiday leave

- entitlement to paid sick leave

- fair maternity and paternity treatment

- ease of trade with the country's biggest export partner

- EU funding directly some of the most deprived parts of the UK

- health and safety in the workplace

- cheaper daily prices

- cheaper holidays

- not inevitably causing a recession which will disproportionately affect working class and lower income people

which are all guaranteed upon Remaining with the European Union.

VOTING OUT - Brexit will allow Britain to embrace the Commonwealth and be GREAT again

Herein lies the problem with the referendum: acute cases of confirmation bias like this, with the fantasy £4300 figures thrown in gleefully for good measure.

Tell me: where is the 2030 economic forecast for remaining in the EU. Did the treasury not produce one? Odd that. You would think, if a cost-benefit analysis were to be done, both referendum scenarios would receive the same treatment. So, um... the people can come to their own conclusions. Perhaps also to qualify a statement like "If we leave, we lose 10% GDP..." with "...but it we remain we lose 4%". But nope. Nothing there.

OK then. Next question. Where is the analysis that actually includes (unlike the treasury edition) the POSITIVES of Brexit? Odd. They would take all the potential negatives from leaving, but not include the positives? Why would they do that?

So let's recap the economic impact assessments as provided by the government and gleefully lorded by those on here:

EU-Remain
Benefits: Yes
Drawbacks: Not defined (& no projection of future EU trajectory)

Brexit
Benefits: Not defined
Drawbacks: Yes, considerable. Where to start?

Does anyone NOT have a problem with this? If you were selectively presenting a case for the above to a jury, cherrypicking the argument, would this be even remotely objective? Would a conviction be safe?

It is exactly this that causes the confirmation bias. You go out looking for the negatives in the press. You find them. Because there are no studies weighing the forecasted pros and cons for both sides.

"But why don't you go and do one then"? Well, I just heard from JohnnyBoy that only the treasury had the top-of-the-range tools, data, and analysis; using alternatives would imply you were "deranged" or something. We could certainly ask them, but it's a bit embarrassing that they didn't finish the cost/benefit matrix above. Perhaps they don't want to?

Still, this chap had a pretty good look at the treasury claims, and laid out his perspective:

[Link]

Sure, to our EUphiles on here it's "propaganda" as opposed to "treasury facts" - but then, given the seriously unbalanced treasury narrative above, it's interesting to see this Macroeconomics PhD (working for the EU Commission and producing the "essential theory" behind the UK govt deficit plan) effort. Even under the most pessimistic of conditions and assumptions, he cannot get even close to the treasury 6% GDP loss. Sexed up?

As for the OECD report, the assumptions that go into that (no trade deals, ever, with any other nation / bloc in the world, apart from the EU) again bear no relation to reality. When you have a computational model, there is a phrase: "GIGO" - If you put Garbage In, you get Garbage Out.....

...which is why we have claims that leaving the EU will be more devastating than WW1, the great depression and the recent economic crash. Garbage In, Garbage Out.