The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

First topic message reminder :

Now it is official (and some guy with a green admin name has ruined the other thread) I shall put this here for you to discuss the referendum.

rodders wrote:I can understand why many city bankers and neo-liberal media moguls would want to leave the EU but can't for the life of me understand why the average middle class or working person can believe they will be better off if britain is forced to pay tariffs to import from the EU and being free to sign bi-lateral trade agreements with the like of the US, China both of whom have considerably poorer employment and human rights standards and a much more powerful negotiating hand when it comes to trade.

Crazy.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:2) they will generally have access to a lot more information & detail than Joe Public and are paid to make objective analysis and rational decisions for the greater good of the whole (again I appreciate this isn't perfect/wholly accurate in practicality).

Not sure I accept that they (should) have more information in a referendum campaign, and it seems a bit easy to say that you're the only one capable of making a decision on balance when you don't give anyone else a go. Considering how many different issues they have to decide on, it seems pretty unlikely that most of them had a much better grasp on it when they made their minds up than people will when they have to.

You think someone that works in the Government, whose daily job it is to look into economics & statistics, or to review treaties, or to negotiate trade deals, or to encourage FDI etc, wouldn't have more information on this than some random numpty that's ready a leaflet put through the door and read a couple of Daily Mail articles??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:2) they will generally have access to a lot more information & detail than Joe Public and are paid to make objective analysis and rational decisions for the greater good of the whole (again I appreciate this isn't perfect/wholly accurate in practicality).

Not sure I accept that they (should) have more information in a referendum campaign, and it seems a bit easy to say that you're the only one capable of making a decision on balance when you don't give anyone else a go. Considering how many different issues they have to decide on, it seems pretty unlikely that most of them had a much better grasp on it when they made their minds up than people will when they have to.

You think someone that works in the Government, whose daily job it is to look into economics & statistics, or to review treaties, or to negotiate trade deals, or to encourage FDI etc, wouldn't have more information on this than some random numpty that's ready a leaflet put through the door and read a couple of Daily Mail articles??

If that were believed by the majority, and indeed if it was remotely true, there'd never be a need for or the inclination to have a General Election. Officials, experts and civil servants are obligated to give their advice and then listen to the decisions of the elected.... who may or may not listen to said advice. Neither would I think a paid analyst is bereft of a political private thought or persuasion, or that he'd be incapable of letting such opinions colour his 'objective' analysis.

Except we would still have a GE because some people prefer one party's policies to another. We elect a party to make large scale collective decisions for us, I'm not sure I'm comfortable that there's a level when those decisions are so big that the responsibility gets passed back down to Joe Public to make the decision.

Duty281 wrote:
Only one fact matters for me - the European Commission is sovereign over our Houses of Parliament.

And that alone will necessitate me to vote Leave.

The rest (free movement of peoples; a large membership fee etc.) are just extras.

I am not making such a decision on your behalf; your vote will carry just as much weight as mine does on the 23rd June. Just as it will for the upcoming local elections, and just as it did for last year's General Election.

Sovereignity is the power to govern another state. According to "them having control" as your statement incorrectly states "13.2% of laws/legislation have come from Brussels" - source: House of Commons library. This figure also includes anything that mentions the EU, even if it's just a passing reference.

EU migrants (and your shocking interpretation of the term "migrant" is utterly astounding) contributed £20bn to the UK economy between 2001 and 2011. Source: Economists at UCL.

The EU is the worlds largest single market. The UK sells more to the Netherlands than it sells to China. The Americans have said they will not do any trade deals with us. The French have already said they will tarriff us to the hilt and try to land grab the financial sector (a sector that accounts for 17% of GDP).

Simply saying "we can create our own trade deals" is tosh of the highest order. "The EU block needs us" - they need us as we are currently in the single market. Once outside of it, why would they open up a trade deal that lets us export, without tariffs, to EU states which would damage their own ability to remain competitive? Most alarmingly is the leave campaigners complete inability to actually present a factually based arguement on what would actually happen if we left. You "lot" probably derided the study that came out recently that each family would be £3600 worse off as "scare" tactics. But at least they are trying to assemble some form of data behind their arguements.

Anyway, come June 23rd you'll be crying in to your Weetabix when you wake up.

To summarise:

* EU migrants contributed £20bn over 10 years. Migration = good
* Brussels doesn't "govern" us.
* We still have "our country". It will always be our country.

TopHat24/7 wrote:You think someone that works in the Government, whose daily job it is to look into economics & statistics, or to review treaties, or to negotiate trade deals, or to encourage FDI etc, wouldn't have more information on this than some random numpty that's ready a leaflet put through the door and read a couple of Daily Mail articles??

My point is that 'it's too complicated for the general public' tends to mean something between 'I can't explain it' and 'I don't understand it', and that saying the Government has more information than the general public implies they're holding stuff back, which would seem less than ideal considering they're asking the general public to make a decision.

It's not neccessarily about information, it's also insight.

I could research the required information on how to replace a boiler. Doesn't mean I'd have greater understanding and insight than a Gas Safe engineer, woud it?

Lowlandbrit wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:You think someone that works in the Government, whose daily job it is to look into economics & statistics, or to review treaties, or to negotiate trade deals, or to encourage FDI etc, wouldn't have more information on this than some random numpty that's ready a leaflet put through the door and read a couple of Daily Mail articles??

My point is that 'it's too complicated for the general public' tends to mean something between 'I can't explain it' and 'I don't understand it'

In short. The bit in between says: "I can't explain it because you're too dumb to ever understand it."

And some people are dumb enough to agree. "We'll never understand it enough, so we'll trust the people we elect both to tell us the truth and to make the right choices.".................... "Besides, the Omnibus edition of Eastenders is on and I don't like politics."

The soothing balm of addictive TV, designed to keep the masses off the streets and tuned out.

SecretFly wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:You think someone that works in the Government, whose daily job it is to look into economics & statistics, or to review treaties, or to negotiate trade deals, or to encourage FDI etc, wouldn't have more information on this than some random numpty that's ready a leaflet put through the door and read a couple of Daily Mail articles??

My point is that 'it's too complicated for the general public' tends to mean something between 'I can't explain it' and 'I don't understand it'

In short.  The bit in between says: "I can't explain it because you're too dumb to ever understand it."

And some people are dumb enough to agree.  "We'll never understand it enough, so we'll trust the people we elect both to tell us the truth and to make the right choices.".................... "Besides, the Omnibus edition of Eastenders is on and I don't like politics."

The soothing balm of addictive TV, designed to keep the masses off the streets and tuned out.

I'm not thick, but am certainly no genius. Personally I don't think I've enough information and understanding to make a 'correct' decision. It will just be an instinctive one.

And I'm not sure I like that idea when extrapolated across the 30 million plus voting population.

TopHat24/7 wrote:It's not neccessarily about information, it's also insight.

I could research the required information on how to replace a boiler.  Doesn't mean I'd have greater understanding and insight than a Gas Safe engineer, woud it?

If you looked at the right documents and took your time.... you'd replace a boiler. Replacing a boiler is a series of mechanical procedures. Cliched Builders tend to pretend they could never boil an egg, wash their own clothes or hoover the carpet.... the wife has the talent for all that stuff. But we all know what it is...laziness and a perception that it ain't manly to turn on a cooker.

So people don't know the details of politics, that impacts all avenues of their lives, because they're either too lazy and/or think it a subject that should be left to them suit-types in Westminster. And most politicians want to perpetuate that distant between those that 'know' what politics is all about, and those that are just asked to vote for the nice-talking man on the TV.

TopHat24/7 wrote: Personally I don't think I've enough information and understanding to make a 'correct' decision. It will just be an instinctive one.

And I'm not sure I like that idea when extrapolated across the 30 million plus voting population.

The correct decision is an instinctive one. That's how governments (democratic ones) all over the world are created...by uninformed people making instinctive decisions (often on polling day itself) to vote for one guy and not another.
How are the people of America going to vote for what will still be the most powerful political figure on the planet? Instinct mostly - it certainly won't be deeply informed choices about the detailed platforms of the candidates, who won't have any detail anyway when getting elected, only rhetoric.

Political parties themselves - and loyalties to them - is instinct. It's family, it's tradition, it's class.... it's instinct.

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It's not neccessarily about information, it's also insight.

I could research the required information on how to replace a boiler.  Doesn't mean I'd have greater understanding and insight than a Gas Safe engineer, woud it?

If you looked at the right documents and took your time.... you'd replace a boiler.  Replacing a boiler is a series of mechanical procedures.  Cliched Builders tend to pretend they could never boil an egg, wash their own clothes or hoover the carpet.... the wife has the talent for all that stuff.  But we all know what it is...laziness and a perception that it ain't manly to turn on a cooker.

So people don't know the details of politics, that impacts all avenues of their lives, because they're either too lazy and/or think it a subject that should be left to them suit-types in Westminster.  And most politicians want to perpetuate that distant between those that 'know' what politics is all about, and those that are just asked to vote for the nice-talking man on the TV.

What will be the exact a precise impact of EU exit on your life?

SecretFly wrote:.... it's instinct.

Democracy at its finest. I would have hoped for a little more personally, but I suspect in the main, you're right.

Tophat, I'm talking in the general... about democracy.... and the idea that our politicians, in whatever democratic country you care to mention, always and forever know the best way to proceed because they better know the details of governance.  
I disagree profoundly.  Democracy is for the people, however ill-informed they are.

I'm talking in the general.  If you want a detailed discussion on the evils of the EU though, I suppose that would be for another more generalised discussion on another thread.

Well, this is a thread on the EU ref......

I see where you're coming from, and appreciated the nietzsche-esque arguments I'm putting forwards are not the most comfortable, but I guess my concern wih the extension of what you're saying is where does it stop?

Democracy involves an elecorate agreeing to devolve powers & decision making abilities upon an elected government. That electorate gets a chance every few years to swap around who gets to make those decisions and have those powers. But why, in some instances, does the electorate get to take those powers back (and in the most complicated & influential circumstances) and say "nah, this time we've got it licked, thanks"??

Why not the smoking ban? Or the fox hunting ban? Or regarding greater devolvement of powers to Scotland, Wales etc??

Right. I'm off to see a man about a bike.

Really enjoyable debating today, looking forward to picking it up tomorrow, thanks all.

I'm with tophat on this. Im no fan of politicians but the average person you talk to is thick as a plank.

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Why not the smoking ban? Or the fox hunting ban? Or regarding greater devolvement of powers to Scotland, Wales etc??

Don't the Swiss have something like that? i.e. referenda on most things?

Including myself btw

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Why not the smoking ban? Or the fox hunting ban? Or regarding greater devolvement of powers to Scotland, Wales etc??

Don't the Swiss have something like that? i.e. referenda on most things?

Do they?

F*cking Swiss......

Why are the Swiss getting votes on the devolvement of powers to Scotland and Wales?

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Why not the smoking ban? Or the fox hunting ban? Or regarding greater devolvement of powers to Scotland, Wales etc??

Don't the Swiss have something like that? i.e. referenda on most things?

I think they have about three votes a year on about three issues each time.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:...Why not the smoking ban? Or the fox hunting ban? Or regarding greater devolvement of powers to Scotland, Wales etc??

Don't the Swiss have something like that? i.e. referenda on most things?

I think they have about three votes a year on about three issues each time.

Ah. OK. Not quite so chaotic as I was imagining. Bad enough though.
Personally, I tend to agree with Toppy (I know!), but I thought I voted a Government in to make decisions on my behalf about the running of the country etc. If I don't like them (and I don't really), I'll vote accordingly next time.

navyblueshorts wrote:I thought I voted a Government in to make decisions on my behalf

Well, in this specific instance you voted in a Government that thought you should make this decision, so in that sense it's kind of your fault really.

Hmmmm...what does the Head of State think?................. in Private? I think a little 'unfortunate' 'well worked' release of 'unguarded opinion' let it be known she'd quite like a chance to vote in the referendum..... if that's allowed??? No?

Lowlandbrit wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I thought I voted a Government in to make decisions on my behalf

Well, in this specific instance you voted in a Government that thought you should make this decision, so in that sense it's kind of your fault really.

Same could be said of all the various cuts though. Voted in a Government that made it clear that it would be proceeding as such. Yet everyone seems quite happy to protest that.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I thought I voted a Government in to make decisions on my behalf

Well, in this specific instance you voted in a Government that thought you should make this decision, so in that sense it's kind of your fault really.

Same could be said of all the various cuts though. Voted in a Government that made it clear that it would be proceeding as such.  Yet everyone seems quite happy to protest that.

Which is exactly why referenda aren't a bad thing: because despite what politicians like to say, a vote for a person/party isn't a vote for everything and anything they say. People either take a grand scheme look at things or decide on one issue that is most important to them. There's maybe a handful of people in all of Britain that agree with every detail of every plan in any manifesto.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I thought I voted a Government in to make decisions on my behalf

Well, in this specific instance you voted in a Government that thought you should make this decision, so in that sense it's kind of your fault really.

Same could be said of all the various cuts though. Voted in a Government that made it clear that it would be proceeding as such.  Yet everyone seems quite happy to protest that.

Which is exactly why referenda aren't a bad thing: because despite what politicians like to say, a vote for a person/party isn't a vote for everything and anything they say. People either take a grand scheme look at things or decide on one issue that is most important to them. There's maybe a handful of people in all of Britain that agree with every detail of every plan in any manifesto.

Government by referenda is a terrible idea. Governments should do what they think is the right thing, not what they think is the most popular thing. If democracy and voter participation TV shows have shown us nothing else, they've shown us that the masses are stupid and shouldn't be trusted.

To quote Super Hans - "People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy."

Lowlandbrit wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I thought I voted a Government in to make decisions on my behalf

Well, in this specific instance you voted in a Government that thought you should make this decision, so in that sense it's kind of your fault really.

Same could be said of all the various cuts though. Voted in a Government that made it clear that it would be proceeding as such.  Yet everyone seems quite happy to protest that.

Which is exactly why referenda aren't a bad thing: because despite what politicians like to say, a vote for a person/party isn't a vote for everything and anything they say. People either take a grand scheme look at things or decide on one issue that is most important to them. There's maybe a handful of people in all of Britain that agree with every detail of every plan in any manifesto.

But we go back to, where does it stop?

The country voted in a party. Every time a portion of the country doesn't like something that party does we get a big referendum on it and the country, essentially, gets to vote for it all again?

Then why do we have GE's? Why FPTP?

Makes a mockery of the lot, IMO.

An odd sensation though it is on the off topic section I actually agree with top hat. There are a number of factors to bear in mind. Firstly, as others have said we actually vote people in to decide these things on our behalf. Let them do their job. If you’re not happy with the decisions they make you get the chance to express that every few years.

Secondly there is a cost/turnout implication. I work the elections in the polling stations and the cost of putting these things on must be phenomenal. I know what the staff get for working the elections in the stations and it is a decent enough amount. You then have to add in the costs of the hire of venues, the counting staff, most counting venues will have private security, police working overtime, there are then training sessions run, frequently on weekends which entails a cost. Obviously the stationary for the voting has to be generated from the position that everyone who has a vote will turn up, which does not happen, and the stationary can only be used once so basically most of it gets pulped, ditto the training material. Extrapolate this over the whole country and the cost of putting an election or referendum on must be truly mind boggling. This also does not include the costs of the campaigning material for the parties, opposing sides of the issue etc. court costs for results that are contested, storage of the ballot papers and so on and so forth. These things are operations on a huge scale.

Also what should not be forgotten is apart from the General Election, and I dare say the EU referendum, nobody turns up. I am working the locals and Police Commissioner elections soon and have done these previously and I think the diplomatic way of putting it would be that there is a reasonable amount of downtime. It is pretty apparent we, as an electorate, are a pretty apathetic bunch currently when we’re asked to turn up once every blue moon. How low turnout would be if we asked to vote three or four times a year probably does not bear thinking about.

TopHat24/7 wrote:The country voted in a party (...) Then why do we have GE's?

We do sort of end up coming back to the fact that the Tories ran on having this referendum. And then every party in Westminster except the SNP voted to have this referendum. The Government, with all its information and rational decision making expertise, did what they thought was the right thing and asked you to make a decision.
You deciding you know better makes a mockery of the lot, IMO.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The country voted in a party (...) Then why do we have GE's?

We do sort of end up coming back to the fact that the Tories ran on having this referendum. And then every party in Westminster except the SNP voted to have this referendum. The Government, with all its information and rational decision making expertise, did what they thought was the right thing and asked you to make a decision.
You deciding you know better makes a mockery of the lot, IMO.

Agree you point, in part, re the Tories running on the ref issue therefore there is an arugment that it was de facto voted for.

I'm not saying I know better. I'm saying that (despite voting Tory this time round) I don't think this is a decision to be entrusted to Joe Public, is probably what governments are elected for and the extrapolation of your argument is that powers are regularly/inconsistently passed to the goverment and then taken back to be voted on again.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I thought I voted a Government in to make decisions on my behalf

Well, in this specific instance you voted in a Government that thought you should make this decision, so in that sense it's kind of your fault really.

True. Damn.

Running with the referendum is arguably what kept them in power.

I don't think it was what kept them in power, at all, otherwise the gains would've been much greater and UKIP wouldn't have taken 4 million votes or whatever it was.

It was, however, a factor and one they played to strongly.

Kind of sucks when so called intelligent types who have been calling for a referendum for years get one....Then have an incoherent case with no positive message to share....

"The EU sucks"...and ???

Haven't heard one positive reason why I should vote leave...

Amateur night..

Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

Mind you, the Vote Leave campaign has been (thus far, and entirely as expected) quite poor. If it has to be frontlined by Tories, I would much rather Daniel Hannan take centre stage, rather than the bumbling, transparent oaf that is Boris Johnson.

Then again, if there is one thing worse than Vote Leave, it is the absolutely woeful Britain Stronger in Europe group. Horrendous.

Average of the last six polls taken shows a 50-50 split, which just goes to prove how different this referendum is to the Scottish one taken nearly two years ago.

Duty281 wrote:Mind you, the Vote Leave campaign has been (thus far, and entirely as expected) quite poor. If it has to be frontlined by Tories, I would much rather Daniel Hannan take centre stage, rather than the bumbling, transparent oaf that is Boris Johnson.

Then again, if there is one thing worse than Vote Leave, it is the absolutely woeful Britain Stronger in Europe group. Horrendous.

From what I've seen Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart have been pretty good too for Leave. Remain's main problem seems to be that it tends to just look more or less like a Government campaign. Feels like there's a big gap where you'd expect the Lib Dems to be, with a clear and enthusiastic pro-EU argument.

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

I've seen this posted a few times on other forums, though no one explains why, other than 'the British don't like being told what to do by foreigners'.

Do any of us?

Isn't that exactly what the whole European debate is about?

Hoonercat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

I've seen this posted a few times on other forums, though no one explains why, other than 'the British don't like being told what to do by foreigners'.

They can't explain why because they both don't know and there's no evidence to suggest it's actually true. I can't think of a much more childish response than to basically say "Well, this is of course incredibly important, but regardless of the actual facts, I'm going to cut off my nose to spite my face just because some Jonny Foreigner has had the temerity to offer a considered comment and, even worse, doesn't support my position. Perish the thought that I should think about what he/she might have said."

Salmond used the same argument when UK treasury said there would be no currency union between UK and an independent Scotland. Yes campaign said that Scots don't like being told what to do and that there would be a currency union.

Yes, an unofficial currency union, which essentially amounts to 'taxation without representation' you f*cking morons.

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

Mind you, the Vote Leave campaign has been (thus far, and entirely as expected) quite poor. If it has to be frontlined by Tories, I would much rather Daniel Hannan take centre stage, rather than the bumbling, transparent oaf that is Boris Johnson.

Then again, if there is one thing worse than Vote Leave, it is the absolutely woeful Britain Stronger in Europe group. Horrendous.

Average of the last six polls taken shows a 50-50 split, which just goes to prove how different this referendum is to the Scottish one taken nearly two years ago.

See you're a bit clueless when it comes to the historical voting patterns of the UK.

There's roughly 15% who simply say "undecided". What these polls also don't give you is a rating scale of say 1-10, which would be handy as there's people I know who say they don't like the EU (I'm not its biggest fan) and would like to leave but they know the sensible option when they get to the polling station will be to vote remain. Historically there is always a fairly decent % of people who will simply switch sides (from what they said to a pollster) or will make their mind up - and that nigh on always means the perceived "safer" option which in this case would be to remain. Examples I hear those little echoey voices in your head saying... Well the most recent general election where LAB and CON were pretty much tied in the polls until a big % realised that they couldn't vote for some wannabe lefties and went CON. Or when CON won the '92 election having been behind in the polls for near enough most of the time.

It's all well and good saying the last week but lets take a look at the last 8 months or so:

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7881493.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/EU-Referendum-Poll-of-Polls-What-UK-Thinks-EU.jpg

The remain vote has been ahead in all of the polls all of the time. One snap week does not make an iota of difference.

Trust me, it will be an absolutely battering when it comes to 10pm and we have the exit polls announced. People have and will always take the safe option. And the safe option in this instance is a damn sight better than this make believe bullsh*t train you leavers are on.

What should happen is that in the massively unlikely event of leave winning then all you lot should simply be banned for life for emigrating and working elsewhere. To be forced to live in a shell of a country after the big private sector companies all simply up and leave as they can't remain competitive with their products and services being tarriffed to the hilt.

And the Scottish referendum showed a 4-6 % point leave for the no vote for most of the campaign, when push came to shove the yes vote won by a landslide 11%.

Case closed .

Poor Australia.... half the population of Britain, half the influence internationally, far greater transit times for virtually anything that's bought or sold, familiar tariff traders.......... and nobody didn't ever tell them that they'd shrivel and die if'n they didn't join the thing that every normal citizen of Europe seems to be very lukewarm about but doesn't want to risk being outside of for fear of needing visa for the 'stag' and 'hen' gigs?

Funny though.... seems like even the Aussie's want to cave in and accept the inevitable.  Second time to the Eurovision????  Brave lads. "Let us in!!!", seems to be their hint.  

Of course we will - but first the Declaration of Loyalty and Obedience to Empress Angela and Prince Jean-Claude.

There are many reasons why this will end up being a vote to stay in and it mirrors reasons for the Scottish independence one:-

1. As has been said people are too frightened of change so will always take the safe option. Then a couple of months down the line they will appear out of the woodwork to moan about Europe. People love to moan but are reluctant to make things happen to change things.

2. There is a large body of Europeans living in the UK who evidently will vote where their heart is and will see a vote to leave as a vote against countries they have roots in.

3. The unknown is a terrifying prospect for a lot of people and so will stick with what has been engrained into their lives (for many) since they were born.

4. Threats of companies pulling out of the country if the vote goes against what they want also sways people.

God forbid should any Scots actually like staying British..

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

Mind you, the Vote Leave campaign has been (thus far, and entirely as expected) quite poor. If it has to be frontlined by Tories, I would much rather Daniel Hannan take centre stage, rather than the bumbling, transparent oaf that is Boris Johnson.

Then again, if there is one thing worse than Vote Leave, it is the absolutely woeful Britain Stronger in Europe group. Horrendous.

Average of the last six polls taken shows a 50-50 split, which just goes to prove how different this referendum is to the Scottish one taken nearly two years ago.

See you're a bit clueless when it comes to the historical voting patterns of the UK.

There's roughly 15% who simply say "undecided". What these polls also don't give you is a rating scale of say 1-10, which would be handy as there's people I know who say they don't like the EU (I'm not its biggest fan) and would like to leave but they know the sensible option when they get to the polling station will be to vote remain. Historically there is always a fairly decent % of people who will simply switch sides (from what they said to a pollster) or will make their mind up - and that nigh on always means the perceived "safer" option which in this case would be to remain. Examples I hear those little echoey voices in your head saying... Well the most recent general election where LAB and CON were pretty much tied in the polls until a big % realised that they couldn't vote for some wannabe lefties and went CON. Or when CON won the '92 election having been behind in the polls for near enough most of the time.

It's all well and good saying the last week but lets take a look at the last 8 months or so:

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7881493.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/EU-Referendum-Poll-of-Polls-What-UK-Thinks-EU.jpg

The remain vote has been ahead in all of the polls all of the time. One snap week does not make an iota of difference.

Trust me, it will be an absolutely battering when it comes to 10pm and we have the exit polls announced. People have and will always take the safe option. And the safe option in this instance is a damn sight better than this make believe bullsh*t train you leavers are on.

What should happen is that in the massively unlikely event of leave winning then all you lot should simply be banned for life for emigrating and working elsewhere. To be forced to live in a shell of a country after the big private sector companies all simply up and leave as they can't remain competitive with their products and services being tarriffed to the hilt.

And the Scottish referendum showed a 4-6 % point leave for the no vote for most of the campaign, when push came to shove the yes vote won by a landslide 11%.

Why is the entirety of the last eight months relevant? What's relevant is now, not what people thought on the issue back in November. And yes, you are right, Remain have been consistently in the lead (between May 7 2015 and Corbyn becoming leader, not a single poll had Leave winning), but now four of the last six polls conducted have shown Leave in the lead, which just goes to show the way this referendum is going.

As I have said previously, I initially expected this referendum to go the same way as the Scottish one. The anti-independence side start with a huge lead, the pro-independence brigade chip away at it bit-by-bit, and the polling starts to get close....but only in the last couple of weeks or so, and too late for independence to win.

(I'm a little confused as to your comments on the Scottish referendum. For one thing, 'No' won not 'Yes''. And 'No' was ahead for every single poll conducted in 2012/2013/2014, bar three, which shows how different it is to the EU referendum.)

However, it hasn't turned out the way I thought, because the pro-independence side have already eradicated the lead of the Remain side and there are still seven weeks to go. This presents a massive problem for Britain Stronger in Europe, because their negative campaign is designed to hold what voters they have, not entice new ones to the cause. They will have to change tack, rapidly, but I expect they won't.

I imagine that the Leave side will start churning out a consistent lead in the polls by the end of this month, and will be able to hold on to it till the end. Similar to UKIP's effort in winning the 2014 European Elections, when they took the lead 3-4 weeks before the election and clung on (in spite of a horrific media barrage).

Another factor that underlines how much of an advantage Leave have is that their voters are far more likely to turnout on a demographic basis, and are far more motivated, than Remain voters - a similar reason as to why the Conservatives beat Labour last year.

I expect Leave to win by a 55-45% margin, there or thereabouts. And that will only be the end of the beginning.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

I've seen this posted a few times on other forums, though no one explains why, other than 'the British don't like being told what to do by foreigners'.

They can't explain why because they both don't know and there's no evidence to suggest it's actually true. I can't think of a much more childish response than to basically say "Well, this is of course incredibly important, but regardless of the actual facts, I'm going to cut off my nose to spite my face just because some Jonny Foreigner has had the temerity to offer a considered comment and, even worse, doesn't support my position. Perish the thought that I should think about what he/she might have said."

The last 7 polls conducted before Obama came were 6-1 in favour of Remain. The first 7 polls conducted after Obama left were 4-3 in favour of Leave.

That's all I was referring to.

Obama's comments were pretty nonsensical, anyway. Even if Britain was pushed to the back of the queue, and it took ten years to get a trade deal with the USA, that would still be a better situation than now, seeing as how the EU doesn't have a free trade deal with the USA.

Facts? Well the USA/UK have the world's largest direct foreign investment partnership; In 2005, American direct investment in the United Kingdom totaled $324 billion, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $282 billion - I'm sure that won't be jeopardised if our nation leaves some decaying political union.