Brexit Poll 1/2/16
Poll: Brexit Poll 1/2/16
Total Members Polled: 1469
Discussion
Blackpuddin said:
turbobloke said:
"EU leaders are undertaking talks to respond to a Brexit, Donald Tusk revealed today, as the slipping polls make it 'very difficult to be optimistic'."
"He was speaking after a meeting in Helsinki with Juha Sipila, the Finnish leader. 'We have to guarantee a proper procedure, if the result is negative. This is what we have discussed today', he said."
I fully expect the leaders of the EU and the UK Gov to cook up a nice little pre-vote sweetener to swing the (crucial) undecideds. "He was speaking after a meeting in Helsinki with Juha Sipila, the Finnish leader. 'We have to guarantee a proper procedure, if the result is negative. This is what we have discussed today', he said."
Even with the Polls leaning towards leave I still think the result will be a close result with remain being the result
B'stard Child said:
Even with the Polls leaning towards leave I still think the result will be a close result with remain being the result
I agree but in the event of a Brexit vote, I don't think the UK will be "allowed" to Leave. It still has to go through Parliament and we'll end up with some token concessions from the EU in order to stayCandellara said:
B'stard Child said:
Even with the Polls leaning towards leave I still think the result will be a close result with remain being the result
I agree but in the event of a Brexit vote, I don't think the UK will be "allowed" to Leave. It still has to go through Parliament and we'll end up with some token concessions from the EU in order to stay
I voted remain as the lesser of two evils. There is much about the current EU I don't like either, e.g., their relentless pushing of the deeply-undemocratic TTIP deal (the one that sets up private offshore courts for foreign businesses - courts to which no poster on PH would have any access). On the other hand, I also recalled that the EU tried to push through some protectionist measures for the British steel industry - and who voted against such measures, thereby allowing the Chinese to dump cheap steel on Britain? None other than Mr. Cameron's Tories ...
Generally, I felt that the referendum campaign was a noisy shambles. Listening to the Brexit debate was akin to listening to two Americans having an argument about 'soccer'. And, alarmingly, it is a characteristic of lightly-informed people that, the scantier their store of knowledge, the greater and more virulent will be their certainties - on all sides of the argument.
Perhaps, referenda should be confined to binary issues that can be grasped by our Twitter generation. In order to come to a fully-rational and considered conclusion on Brexit, you'd need a good grasp of, e.g.:
- 200 years of European history and of the causes of previous intra-European conflicts;
- Macro-economics;
- Post cold-war international politics;
- Post cold-war military strategy (especially relevant now that Putin is off his chain);
- An ability objectively to contrast the workings of national versus EU institutions; and
- An ability to sieve out the wider socio-economic effects of globalisation and current laissez-faire economics from the effects of EU policies.
Applying those criteria, I wonder how many of us qualified as deeply-informed voters? Certainly not me.
We live in representative democracies, not plebiscite democracies. If an electorate wishes to effect fundamental change on a multi-faceted issue with far-reaching and long-lasting implications, then that change should filter slowly up through the democratic process and find practical expression in a gradual favouring of elected representatives with converging views on the issue; as opposed to having important
strategic issues being decided by a precipitate process that is vulnerable to being degraded by an outbreak of media-fuelled sensationalism (e.g., persuasive tosh such as "£350 million for the NHS!").
Some of May's positions seem somewhat unrealistic. Britain is now pinning its hopes on a good deal with the US standing in for the probable loss of the EU market. However, the Donald will, as he says, "put America first". Sure, the UK will (eventually) get a deal with the US; but only a very gullible person with limited experience of how hard-nosed and ruthless the Yanks are in negotiations would bet on it being a good deal for the UK. And as for the old Commonwealth "loyalties"? Get real. Last year, the Aussies gave a 50 billion submarine shipbuilding deal to .... the French.
Ultimately, Brexit is a good thing, if only for the reality that the Brits never wanted to be in the EU in the first place. The EU-bashing culture in the UK was never capable of being mollified. The British hatred of the EU derives, not from logic, but from nationalistic pride, emotion and colonial-type nostalgia. The UK’s EU-refuseniks consider that the mere fact of EU membership is borderline-humiliating in itself.
As Clement Attlee once remarked: “I’m not very keen on the Common Market. After all, we beat Germany and we beat Italy and we saved France and Belgium and Holland. I never see why we should go crawling to them.”
In 2017, the UK’s cultural reality is that a majority of English people do not want the EU in any guise, and, short of voting itself out of existence and joining the Commonwealth, there’s little the EU can do to accommodate such an attitude.
In the early 1960s, de Gaulle’s concern was that if Britain could not dominate the EEC, she would then try to wreck it from the inside. He also noted that Britain “would only enter the European Community once she had given up both her imperial dream and her symbiotic relationship with the Americans. In other words, when she is on the side of Europe.”
Of course, that mind-shift has not happened; and it is unlikely ever to happen; certainly not in the next 25 years.
Good luck with The Donald ...
Generally, I felt that the referendum campaign was a noisy shambles. Listening to the Brexit debate was akin to listening to two Americans having an argument about 'soccer'. And, alarmingly, it is a characteristic of lightly-informed people that, the scantier their store of knowledge, the greater and more virulent will be their certainties - on all sides of the argument.
Perhaps, referenda should be confined to binary issues that can be grasped by our Twitter generation. In order to come to a fully-rational and considered conclusion on Brexit, you'd need a good grasp of, e.g.:
- 200 years of European history and of the causes of previous intra-European conflicts;
- Macro-economics;
- Post cold-war international politics;
- Post cold-war military strategy (especially relevant now that Putin is off his chain);
- An ability objectively to contrast the workings of national versus EU institutions; and
- An ability to sieve out the wider socio-economic effects of globalisation and current laissez-faire economics from the effects of EU policies.
Applying those criteria, I wonder how many of us qualified as deeply-informed voters? Certainly not me.
We live in representative democracies, not plebiscite democracies. If an electorate wishes to effect fundamental change on a multi-faceted issue with far-reaching and long-lasting implications, then that change should filter slowly up through the democratic process and find practical expression in a gradual favouring of elected representatives with converging views on the issue; as opposed to having important
strategic issues being decided by a precipitate process that is vulnerable to being degraded by an outbreak of media-fuelled sensationalism (e.g., persuasive tosh such as "£350 million for the NHS!").
Some of May's positions seem somewhat unrealistic. Britain is now pinning its hopes on a good deal with the US standing in for the probable loss of the EU market. However, the Donald will, as he says, "put America first". Sure, the UK will (eventually) get a deal with the US; but only a very gullible person with limited experience of how hard-nosed and ruthless the Yanks are in negotiations would bet on it being a good deal for the UK. And as for the old Commonwealth "loyalties"? Get real. Last year, the Aussies gave a 50 billion submarine shipbuilding deal to .... the French.
Ultimately, Brexit is a good thing, if only for the reality that the Brits never wanted to be in the EU in the first place. The EU-bashing culture in the UK was never capable of being mollified. The British hatred of the EU derives, not from logic, but from nationalistic pride, emotion and colonial-type nostalgia. The UK’s EU-refuseniks consider that the mere fact of EU membership is borderline-humiliating in itself.
As Clement Attlee once remarked: “I’m not very keen on the Common Market. After all, we beat Germany and we beat Italy and we saved France and Belgium and Holland. I never see why we should go crawling to them.”
In 2017, the UK’s cultural reality is that a majority of English people do not want the EU in any guise, and, short of voting itself out of existence and joining the Commonwealth, there’s little the EU can do to accommodate such an attitude.
In the early 1960s, de Gaulle’s concern was that if Britain could not dominate the EEC, she would then try to wreck it from the inside. He also noted that Britain “would only enter the European Community once she had given up both her imperial dream and her symbiotic relationship with the Americans. In other words, when she is on the side of Europe.”
Of course, that mind-shift has not happened; and it is unlikely ever to happen; certainly not in the next 25 years.
Good luck with The Donald ...
....................................Tommy
That relies on the assumption that politics and economics exist in some sort of vacuum which ordinary voters know nothing about and politicians are masters of. Neither condition is true.
If such a lofty conceit was true Cameron wouldn't have made such an utter mess of the whole affair. He would have secured meaningful reforms and won the referendum.
And even if Cameron's incompetence was an exception he wouldn't have been in that position if not for a series of failures in our handling of our relationship with the EU.
Britain never should have been in the political project of European Union. Heath never should have taken us in, lying that it was just a trade agreement. Major never should have forced through Maastricht. At either point we could have forged a better relationship with the European Union in a more systematic way. Which I do agree would have been preferable.
People obviously aren't as stupid or as malleable as Cameron and co believed, and they gave him a richly deserved kicking in the referendum. This again highlighted his arrogance and incompetence, because he had offered a simple binary choice and made no provision for one of the outcomes.
Again if you're going to claim the right to govern based on your ability to do so well it would be a good idea to avoid such a shambles.
If the other condition were true and people are simply led by emotive propaganda then why weren't they convinced by the vast array of emotive propaganda put forward by the Remain campaign? Economic ruin, the rise of neo fascism, isolation and even world war 3 were all on the cards. The experts all agreed and only jaded old dimwits out in the shires wanted to leave.
If people are stupid then it shouldn't be that hard to sway them your way. Especially with the BBC, the Bank of England, the UN and the President of the US on your side.
Referendums may not be part of our constitution historically but we have had enough in recent years to get the idea.
The debate was had and the Leave campaign put forward a stronger case and won the vote.
That relies on the assumption that politics and economics exist in some sort of vacuum which ordinary voters know nothing about and politicians are masters of. Neither condition is true.
If such a lofty conceit was true Cameron wouldn't have made such an utter mess of the whole affair. He would have secured meaningful reforms and won the referendum.
And even if Cameron's incompetence was an exception he wouldn't have been in that position if not for a series of failures in our handling of our relationship with the EU.
Britain never should have been in the political project of European Union. Heath never should have taken us in, lying that it was just a trade agreement. Major never should have forced through Maastricht. At either point we could have forged a better relationship with the European Union in a more systematic way. Which I do agree would have been preferable.
People obviously aren't as stupid or as malleable as Cameron and co believed, and they gave him a richly deserved kicking in the referendum. This again highlighted his arrogance and incompetence, because he had offered a simple binary choice and made no provision for one of the outcomes.
Again if you're going to claim the right to govern based on your ability to do so well it would be a good idea to avoid such a shambles.
If the other condition were true and people are simply led by emotive propaganda then why weren't they convinced by the vast array of emotive propaganda put forward by the Remain campaign? Economic ruin, the rise of neo fascism, isolation and even world war 3 were all on the cards. The experts all agreed and only jaded old dimwits out in the shires wanted to leave.
If people are stupid then it shouldn't be that hard to sway them your way. Especially with the BBC, the Bank of England, the UN and the President of the US on your side.
Referendums may not be part of our constitution historically but we have had enough in recent years to get the idea.
The debate was had and the Leave campaign put forward a stronger case and won the vote.
tommy1973s said:
I voted remain as the lesser of two evils. There is much about the current EU I don't like either, e.g., their relentless pushing of the deeply-undemocratic TTIP deal (the one that sets up private offshore courts for foreign businesses - courts to which no poster on PH would have any access). On the other hand, I also recalled that the EU tried to push through some protectionist measures for the British steel industry - and who voted against such measures, thereby allowing the Chinese to dump cheap steel on Britain? None other than Mr. Cameron's Tories ...
Generally, I felt that the referendum campaign was a noisy shambles. Listening to the Brexit debate was akin to listening to two Americans having an argument about 'soccer'. And, alarmingly, it is a characteristic of lightly-informed people that, the scantier their store of knowledge, the greater and more virulent will be their certainties - on all sides of the argument.
Perhaps, referenda should be confined to binary issues that can be grasped by our Twitter generation. In order to come to a fully-rational and considered conclusion on Brexit, you'd need a good grasp of, e.g.:
- 200 years of European history and of the causes of previous intra-European conflicts;
- Macro-economics;
- Post cold-war international politics;
- Post cold-war military strategy (especially relevant now that Putin is off his chain);
- An ability objectively to contrast the workings of national versus EU institutions; and
- An ability to sieve out the wider socio-economic effects of globalisation and current laissez-faire economics from the effects of EU policies.
Applying those criteria, I wonder how many of us qualified as deeply-informed voters? Certainly not me.
We live in representative democracies, not plebiscite democracies. If an electorate wishes to effect fundamental change on a multi-faceted issue with far-reaching and long-lasting implications, then that change should filter slowly up through the democratic process and find practical expression in a gradual favouring of elected representatives with converging views on the issue; as opposed to having important
strategic issues being decided by a precipitate process that is vulnerable to being degraded by an outbreak of media-fuelled sensationalism (e.g., persuasive tosh such as "£350 million for the NHS!").
Above see comment after part IIGenerally, I felt that the referendum campaign was a noisy shambles. Listening to the Brexit debate was akin to listening to two Americans having an argument about 'soccer'. And, alarmingly, it is a characteristic of lightly-informed people that, the scantier their store of knowledge, the greater and more virulent will be their certainties - on all sides of the argument.
Perhaps, referenda should be confined to binary issues that can be grasped by our Twitter generation. In order to come to a fully-rational and considered conclusion on Brexit, you'd need a good grasp of, e.g.:
- 200 years of European history and of the causes of previous intra-European conflicts;
- Macro-economics;
- Post cold-war international politics;
- Post cold-war military strategy (especially relevant now that Putin is off his chain);
- An ability objectively to contrast the workings of national versus EU institutions; and
- An ability to sieve out the wider socio-economic effects of globalisation and current laissez-faire economics from the effects of EU policies.
Applying those criteria, I wonder how many of us qualified as deeply-informed voters? Certainly not me.
We live in representative democracies, not plebiscite democracies. If an electorate wishes to effect fundamental change on a multi-faceted issue with far-reaching and long-lasting implications, then that change should filter slowly up through the democratic process and find practical expression in a gradual favouring of elected representatives with converging views on the issue; as opposed to having important
strategic issues being decided by a precipitate process that is vulnerable to being degraded by an outbreak of media-fuelled sensationalism (e.g., persuasive tosh such as "£350 million for the NHS!").
tommy1973s said:
Some of May's positions seem somewhat unrealistic. Britain is now pinning its hopes on a good deal with the US standing in for the probable loss of the EU market. However, the Donald will, as he says, "put America first". Sure, the UK will (eventually) get a deal with the US; but only a very gullible person with limited experience of how hard-nosed and ruthless the Yanks are in negotiations would bet on it being a good deal for the UK. And as for the old Commonwealth "loyalties"? Get real. Last year, the Aussies gave a 50 billion submarine shipbuilding deal to .... the French.
Ultimately, Brexit is a good thing, if only for the reality that the Brits never wanted to be in the EU in the first place. The EU-bashing culture in the UK was never capable of being mollified. The British hatred of the EU derives, not from logic, but from nationalistic pride, emotion and colonial-type nostalgia. The UK’s EU-refuseniks consider that the mere fact of EU membership is borderline-humiliating in itself.
As Clement Attlee once remarked: “I’m not very keen on the Common Market. After all, we beat Germany and we beat Italy and we saved France and Belgium and Holland. I never see why we should go crawling to them.”
In 2017, the UK’s cultural reality is that a majority of English people do not want the EU in any guise, and, short of voting itself out of existence and joining the Commonwealth, there’s little the EU can do to accommodate such an attitude.
In the early 1960s, de Gaulle’s concern was that if Britain could not dominate the EEC, she would then try to wreck it from the inside. He also noted that Britain “would only enter the European Community once she had given up both her imperial dream and her symbiotic relationship with the Americans. In other words, when she is on the side of Europe.”
Of course, that mind-shift has not happened; and it is unlikely ever to happen; certainly not in the next 25 years.
Good luck with The Donald ...
Google said.............Ultimately, Brexit is a good thing, if only for the reality that the Brits never wanted to be in the EU in the first place. The EU-bashing culture in the UK was never capable of being mollified. The British hatred of the EU derives, not from logic, but from nationalistic pride, emotion and colonial-type nostalgia. The UK’s EU-refuseniks consider that the mere fact of EU membership is borderline-humiliating in itself.
As Clement Attlee once remarked: “I’m not very keen on the Common Market. After all, we beat Germany and we beat Italy and we saved France and Belgium and Holland. I never see why we should go crawling to them.”
In 2017, the UK’s cultural reality is that a majority of English people do not want the EU in any guise, and, short of voting itself out of existence and joining the Commonwealth, there’s little the EU can do to accommodate such an attitude.
In the early 1960s, de Gaulle’s concern was that if Britain could not dominate the EEC, she would then try to wreck it from the inside. He also noted that Britain “would only enter the European Community once she had given up both her imperial dream and her symbiotic relationship with the Americans. In other words, when she is on the side of Europe.”
Of course, that mind-shift has not happened; and it is unlikely ever to happen; certainly not in the next 25 years.
Good luck with The Donald ...
In the comments section of the Spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-voters-a...
rustbucketblues said:
I voted remain as the lesser of two evils. There is much about the current EU I don't like either, e.g., their relentless pushing of the deeply-undemocratic TTIP deal (the one that sets up private offshore courts for foreign businesses - courts to which the likes of you and me would have no access). On the other hand, I also recalled that the EU tried to push through some protectionist measures for the British steel industry - and who voted against such measures, thereby allowing the Chinese to dump cheap steel on Britain? None other than Mr Cameron's Tories ...
Generally, I felt that the referendum campaign was a noisy shambles. Listening to the Brexit debate was akin to listening to two Americans having an argument about soccer. And, alarmingly, it is a characteristic of lightly-informed people that, the scantier their store of knowledge, the greater and more virulent will be their certainties - on all sides of the argument.
Perhaps, referenda should be confined to binary issues that can be grasped by our Twitter generation. In order to come to a fully-rational and considered conclusion on Brexit, you'd need a good grasp of, e.g.:
- 200 years of European history and of the causes of previous intra-European conflicts;
- Macro-economics;
- Post cold-war international politics;
- Post cold-war military strategy (especially relevant now that Putin is off his chain);
- An ability objectively to contrast the workings of national versus EU institutions; and
- An ability to sieve out the wider socio-economic effects of globalisation and current lasses-faire economics from the effects of EU policies.
Applying those criteria, I wonder how many of us would qualify as deeply-informed voters? Certainly not me.
We live in representative democracies, not plebiscite democracies. If an electorate wishes to effect fundamental change on a multi-faceted issue with far-reaching and long-lasting implications, then that change should filter slowly up through the democratic process and find practical expression in a gradual favouring of elected representatives with converging views on the issue; as opposed to having important strategic issues being decided by a precipitate process that is vulnerable to being degraded by an outbreak of media-fuelled sensationalism (e.g., persuasive b
ks such as "£350 million for the NHS!") .
So that's the section in Part I pretty much nailed so either Tommy1973 is rustbucketblues AICMFP or his post is ripped off content......Generally, I felt that the referendum campaign was a noisy shambles. Listening to the Brexit debate was akin to listening to two Americans having an argument about soccer. And, alarmingly, it is a characteristic of lightly-informed people that, the scantier their store of knowledge, the greater and more virulent will be their certainties - on all sides of the argument.
Perhaps, referenda should be confined to binary issues that can be grasped by our Twitter generation. In order to come to a fully-rational and considered conclusion on Brexit, you'd need a good grasp of, e.g.:
- 200 years of European history and of the causes of previous intra-European conflicts;
- Macro-economics;
- Post cold-war international politics;
- Post cold-war military strategy (especially relevant now that Putin is off his chain);
- An ability objectively to contrast the workings of national versus EU institutions; and
- An ability to sieve out the wider socio-economic effects of globalisation and current lasses-faire economics from the effects of EU policies.
Applying those criteria, I wonder how many of us would qualify as deeply-informed voters? Certainly not me.
We live in representative democracies, not plebiscite democracies. If an electorate wishes to effect fundamental change on a multi-faceted issue with far-reaching and long-lasting implications, then that change should filter slowly up through the democratic process and find practical expression in a gradual favouring of elected representatives with converging views on the issue; as opposed to having important strategic issues being decided by a precipitate process that is vulnerable to being degraded by an outbreak of media-fuelled sensationalism (e.g., persuasive b
ks such as "£350 million for the NHS!") .So what's the betting I can find the rest with a similar search will it or won't it be a different source??
B'stard Child said:
alfie2244 said:
Whoda thunk it.
You did 
I bet you were holding it back to pop it in later you nasty man
Sorry for being the spoiler
PS second part - that's proving difficult - lots of little sections nothing with the bulk.....
B'stard Child said:
alfie2244 said:
Whoda thunk it.
PS second part - that's proving difficult - lots of little sections nothing with the bulk.....
Tommy's obviously been getting some coaching from another well known plagiarism specialist, although it could well be his own work.
alfie2244 said:
No credit where credit due and you will be mentioned in dispatches......I had my suspicions (fairly obvious really) but couldn't be arsed to find it.......
It was easy but I did take a section out that was distinctive and differentStill struggling with Part II - I may have to let that one go but if someone does that for part then logic says they will have done it for all
And of course he could be the OP in the spectator comments
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff