Brexit Poll 1/2/16

[Mario149]

don4l said:

It is a bilateral agreement. The same conditions exist for both parties.


Far from being "shafted" Swiss politicians and businessmen are thrilled with the deal.

It's the same for both parties, except that it's not the same for both parties: https://www.pwc.ch/user_content/editor/files/svcs_...

PWC said:

The bilateral Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2013 between China and Switzerland comes into force on 1 July 2014. Switzerland will abolish all customs duties on imports of Chinese industrial goods. China is abolishing or reducing the large majority of its customs duties on imported Swiss industrial goods, in whole or in part, either when the treaty comes into force or after a transitional period (usually 5 or 10 years, but, in some cases 12 or 15 years). On agricultural products both sides will make concessions.

China gets tariff free exports from day 1, the Swiss have to wait for it for up to 15 years. And all of that took 4 years to get into place. If the Swiss got such a stonking deal, why isn't it China having to wait up to 15 years and the Swiss getting instant tariff free access?

And of course Swiss business men are thrilled with the deal, some tariff-free trade is better than no free trade!

[Mario149]

Murph7355 said:

Am I? I'm not so sure. I'm also not convinced that the EU will be forever siding with us in that debate, in or out. Though if we're all genuinely one state in due course, it won't matter as Gibraltar will belong to neither the UK nor Spain.

It'll still belong to us, but it'll be a non-issue

Murph7355 said:

Gibraltar has also been a British territory for something like 275 years longer than the EU has existed and we've managed during that period (though it's increasingly an anachronism. As is Spain's Melilla and Ceuta). Though I suppose you also believe the EU has prevented World Wars too?

Of course we'll "manage", but why make life more difficult. Also, comparing the status of Gibraltar from x hundred years ago and how things worked then is not a meaningful comparison nowadays. Unless of course we want to start putting holes in Spanish ships like I said before!

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's prevented a world war, but I'd have no problem believing that it's saved lives by reducing conflict. Not that we'll ever know either way.

Murph7355 said:

Again, it's just a stat...and causation and correlation being confused again. Graduated in 1992, post graduate 1993. Voting out.

Not confusing them, I'm just not blind to the relation as to do anything else is to be naive. And again like someone else, showing that you're a grad and voting out means nothing in itself.

[Mario149]

andymadmak said:

Now leave aside the reality that even a vote for staying in the EU is not a vote for the status quo ante. We are told it will change. We have been told in what ways it might change, but we don't know for sure what the final structure will be.

Except it is if we want it to be! We, like every other country in the EU, have a veto and we also have to have another referendum before more powers are transferred to the EU. If we don't want it to change, it won't. How do people keep missing this?!

[Mario149]

Tony427 said:

Mario149 said:

CaptainSlow said:

Mario149 said:

Quite. It took me 5 mins the other day to find some 2014 trade figures that showed that if we lost 20% of our exports to the EU we'd either have to increase exports to the states my 60%, or increase our exports to our next EIGHT biggest export markets by 100% (i.e. double it).

Well it's a good job the EU is the global growth market then isn't it, otherwise someone may realise putting all our eggs in one basket is stupid.

European Union is currently growing at about 2% which last time I check is roughly the rate at which we're growing. This is what makes no sense about the Leave economic arguments. We have it good right now, things are going well for us and contrary to popular Brexit belief we're not over-regulated and stifled. I get that people like a punt on potentially doing better, I like the idea too. But when something like 90% of economists say leaving will disadvantage us even in the long term, and when everyone who's been in charge of the the UK/UK economy since god knows how long says it's also a bad idea, and pretty much all (maybe actually all) the major financial institutions/groups around the world say leaving is bad, it takes a special kind of mindset by the Leave campaign to say "no, they're all wrong, we'll be significantly better off" when they can't even decide on what trading status they're aiming for post-Brexit.

Its not growing at 2% , its growth rate is 1.5% so once again Remain supporters are using made up figures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36284549

Read the article, Germany doubled its growth rate buut others were once again shafted by Germany using the weakness to boost their own exports and growth.

Germany continues to grow whilst Greece continues to contract.

Cheers,

Tony

I said "about" 2% but fair play and I will concede our growth rates are not the same. Although rather pleasantly, if we're going to go into detail, a quick play here shows that our average quarterly growth for the last 3 years has be 0.63% and the Eurozone's has been 0.34%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-grow...

At near on double their growth rate and an average of 2.5%, we're hardly suffering here.

[Mario149]

Einion Yrth said:

If leave wins Farage will be out of a job, and the political party he's been leading will have little cause to continue, at least in its current form.
Funny way to further your career.

I would respectfully say that if you think being one of the leaders of a successful Brexit campaign will not enhance NF's job prospects and earning potential (whether or not with UKIP) you're not seeing the bigger picture.

[Mario149]

CaptainSlow said:

Mario149 said:

Right, so you don't like the results so you're picking apart the polling itself, presumably not being a pollster yourself and knowing nothing about polling. Do you do that with polls where there are results you agree with as well? Thought not.

I'm highlighting flaws in the poll, but if you agree with the result then these don't matter right? Thought not. Presumably you don't have any statistical analysis education and knowing nothing on the subject.

But you're not highlighting flaws in the poll. You're just highlighting the nature of polls, that is that they're samples of opinion. If you can show me something specifically wrong with this poll compared to other polls among professional economists that say Brexit is a good idea (if there are any), then you might have a leg to stand on. Just saying it's wrong because only 17% or whatever of people replied is not an argument. If it was, the Bexit campaign would have torn it apart.

CaptainSlow said:

Mario149 said:

"Should the UK leave the EU" - straw man in *this* particular discussion. The thread of what you and I are discussing is whether the economic argument stacks up. Which to clarify, a good sample of professional economists don't believe it does. But hey ho, let's ignore the people who do this for a job.

We aren't just discussing the economics it's far wider than that, you've just introduced a poll with questionable sampling results. But let's just ignore that shall we.

_Our_ discussion between you and I was about the economics. If you want to discuss other aspects as well, that's fine. As for poll with questionable results, as above, just because you say it's questionable doesn't mean it is. The advantage the Brexit campaign have with economic polls is that none to hardly any (I'm sure there's one somewhere I haven't seen) appear support their cause, so they can just say they're not valid - ironically something they wouldn't be able to do if they were getting support from them.


Edited for formatting

Edited by Mario149 on Wednesday 8th June 11:41

[Mario149]

CaptainSlow said:

It is absolutely a flaw in the results of this poll. As response rate of 17% would fail any statistical testing, this is fact, so indeed the poll isn't right or wrong...it's just not worth considering.

Oh come off it, you're starting to sound silly now. 17% / 630+ responses is perfectly good enough to get a good idea of what a group of people think. We're not talking about asking 5 people out of a group of 25. The GE polling is always done on a sample of about 1,000 or so people (or a few hundredths of 1% of the population), is far more complex to process and even with its errors in 2015 the polls were only about 5% out.

[Mario149]

Elroy Blue said:

The Turkish President shows he's a lover of equal rights. Perfect EU material. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/turkey-s-preside...

Good job they're not joining then.

[Mario149]

Murph7355 said:

Mario149 said:

...
Just saying it's wrong because only 17% or whatever of people replied is not an argument. If it was, the Bexit campaign would have torn it apart.

What is wrong is to say things like "the majority of economists think Brexit will be bad news", or "economists resoundingly believe Brexit would be bad".

I'm not suggesting you have said these things, but this sort of tone has been and is being used by many on the Remain side (check out nigh on every other post by //ajd for a start ).

It's only wrong if you have double standards. It's only as wrong to say it as it was to say during the last GE polling that Labour/Tory/LD/whatever had the support of X% of the electorate when only a fe thousand people at best were asked in every poll.

Let's be clear, we can pick at the semantics of EU Referendum polling, but the *only* reason we're picking at this poll is that it shows, by a significant margin, a result that the Brexit campaign doesn't like and can't effectively rebut, along with a man-size helping of number 2 on here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/johnny-rich/35-rea...

[Mario149]

don4l said:

The EU is absolutely committed to constant change until "Ever closer union" is achieved.

If you like a bit of risk, then I would also advise you to vote Remain.

Oh for pity's sake. We. Have. A. Veto. Those words should be bloody put on a banner at the top of every EU page.

Nothing happens in terms of ever closer union; Turkey, Saudi or Timbuktu joining unless we want it to.

[Mario149]

SeeFive said:

Anyone changed their mind since this pistonheads poll was opened?

As the poll and this thread's OP, I voted Leaning Towards Stay as I did have a few misgivings about the EU. I then actually gravitated towards Leaning To Leave in my head not long after, but am now firmly in the Remain camp (difficult to tell isn't it ) after reading up on the things I thought I had a problem with that I thought Leaving might have fixed. And also not in small part due to the Brexit campaign ironically.

[Mario149]

Esseesse said:

Mario149 said:

Elroy Blue said:

The Turkish President shows he's a lover of equal rights. Perfect EU material. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/turkey-s-preside...

Good job they're not joining then.

Are they not?

Lord Owen argues against early, speeded EU membership for Turkey

Lord Owen said:

On Sunday, 21 May Lord Owen appeared on both Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil and Murnaghan on Sky News.

In these programmes Lord Owen reminded viewers that David Cameron had committed the UK at the European Council on 18 March 2016 (only 9 weeks ago) in para 8 of the formal announcement from the Council “to re-energise the accession process” of Turkey into the EU. Also that “Preparatory work for the opening of other Chapters will continue at an accelerating pace …All these elements will be taken forward in parallel.”

Lord Owen stressed the paramount need to keep Turkey in NATO and as a country part European, part Middle East. The way to do that was through entry into the Single Market with other countries not in the EU but without a commitment to free movement of people and labour. Not through early, speeded-up EU membership with automatic right of entry into all other EU countries.

From about 6 minutes in here...

I'll start worrying about what Lord Owen thinks about Turkey joining when he's our PM

[Mario149]

andymadmak said:

Mario149 said:

It's only wrong if you have double standards. It's only as wrong to say it as it was to say during the last GE polling that Labour/Tory/LD/whatever had the support of X% of the electorate when only a fe thousand people at best were asked in every poll.

Let's be clear, we can pick at the semantics of EU Referendum polling, but the *only* reason we're picking at this poll is that it shows, by a significant margin, a result that the Brexit campaign doesn't like and can't effectively rebut, along with a man-size helping of number 2 on here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/johnny-rich/35-rea...

I think, with the greatest respect, that you don't understand how polling works.

So if it's not estimating what a larger group of people think, enlighten me please

[Mario149]

andymadmak said:

Mario149 said:

Oh for pity's sake. We. Have. A. Veto. Those words should be bloody put on a banner at the top of every EU page.

Nothing happens in terms of ever closer union; Turkey, Saudi or Timbuktu joining unless we want it to.

Not true. We have a temporary opt out. We also have a clause in our own laws that make it necessary for the UK Government to hold a referendum before "further powers can be transferred to Brussels". - that bit sounds good until you realise that the determination of what constitutes "further powers" (and thus what might trigger a referendum) is likely to be made by the Government of the day, and thus be in line with whatever agenda that body may have at that time.
If a future UK Government, for its own political purposes, decided to opt in to "ever closer union" then we'd be in it regardless of what the people might say.

The second point I would make is that of "direction of travel". The EU is travelling towards a closer union of its members. Everything it does and will do is geared towards that. Every policy is focussed on that. Think of it like being on a bus. It's heading to Swindon but you (one passenger) are not so keen on the destination, but you like the other advantages of being on the bus. To mitigate getting closer to Swindon you progressively work your way towards the back of the bus... Ultimately the bus still gets to Swindon, and the fact that you are at the back of the bus does not change your own location.
The only way out is to have jumped out of the rear emergency exit ( I am really getting into this bus analogy thing! ) Yes the landing may hurt a bit, but at least you're no longer going to Swindon, and you can even maybe hitch a lift (or walk) to the place you really want to be.

So you don't trust a hypothetical future government get it right and have a ref and/or veto Turkey et al joining if necessary, but you *do* trust another hypothetical future government to successfully take us out of the EU without cocking up the process. Right, makes perfect sense now.

More info on our veto here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eur...

Given that someone new joining or increased federal powers requires treaty change, over which every country has a veto, I'm not wetting my bed about becoming a German vassal state quite yet. To use your bus analogy, 28 keys have to be turned to run the bus, and anyone of the 28 people on board can remove their's and stop its journey closer to Federal City, whether that is the planned route or not.

[Mario149]

tarnished said:

Mario149 said:

Oh for pity's sake. We. Have. A. Veto. Those words should be bloody put on a banner at the top of every EU page.

Nothing happens in terms of ever closer union; Turkey, Saudi or Timbuktu joining unless we want it to.

Someone might have a veto. I doubt anyone's going to ask me after the 23rd.

You don't get asked about a lot of things. But don't worry, it's not just you

[Mario149]

Tony427 said:

A veto is only effective if our then Government actually uses it.

Do you truly trust the current crop of politicians to use the veto in the manner you ascribe to them.

In our interest. Not in their own.

Look at Lying Dave. You cannot trust that man, shown up in so many ways to be duplicitous. He says one thin to the Turks, another to his electorate and in March signed up to paying £2b to speed up the Turkey accession.

Say Labour gets in. Look how Corbyn (not that it will be him) has had a divine " road to Damascus" intervention and change of heart. From 41 years of Anti Eu to Pro in 2 weeks.

Given the state of both the Conservative and the Labour party, both fractured and leaking support, who knows in a few years time we could have a Lib Dem, Greens and SNP( if they are still with us) coalition, supported by Hamas and the Burnley Liberation Front.

We just don't know who will have their hand on the veto.

The only way to be sure is to remove ourselves from that situation completely.

Cheers,

Tony

See my reply to andymadmak, it's quicker than me doing a cut and paste job

[Mario149]

CaptainSlow said:

Mario149 said:

CaptainSlow said:

It is absolutely a flaw in the results of this poll. As response rate of 17% would fail any statistical testing, this is fact, so indeed the poll isn't right or wrong...it's just not worth considering.

Oh come off it, you're starting to sound silly now. 17% / 630+ responses is perfectly good enough to get a good idea of what a group of people think. We're not talking about asking 5 people out of a group of 25. The GE polling is always done on a sample of about 1,000 or so people (or a few hundredths of 1% of the population), is far more complex to process and even with its errors in 2015 the polls were only about 5% out.

If you think it's perfectly good fair enough. I'm just stating that anyone with a knowledge of statistical sampling would reject it. Comparing it with a polling method where people are directly asked isn't correct. You're just demonstrating a lack of ability to understand this quite basic difference and also a lack of objective thinking.

So if it's that bad, *show* me the bias and how all the Leave economists were left out! Show me how Leavers did not respond because of X,Y and Z. I'm happy to concede the poll is unlikely to be bang on, but just choosing to stick your head in the sand and say it's not relevant is naive at best. Especially when combined with the fact that no significant economic authority agrees with you. Given Leave is apparently going to be economic nirvana after a few years, you would think that even if the poll was giving dodgy results, we'd see a little more support for that cause.

[Mario149]

Murph7355 said:

Absolute nonsense.... With hindsight (I'll come back to that) we categorically know it was wrong to state anything definitive from the polls as the polls ended up not reflecting what actually happened in the GE.

And yet, despite being catastrophically wrong, they were in fact only 5% or so out.

Murph7355 said:

stuff about no definitive economic argument either way

I completely agree there's not definitive argument either way, no-one can predict the future. But when a vast majority of people who know more than you on the subject are telling you what they believe is the most likely outcome of an action, it's foolish and frankly idiotic to ignore it, and doing so devalues the Brexit argument.

[Mario149]

don4l said:

Mario149 said:

CaptainSlow said:

It is absolutely a flaw in the results of this poll. As response rate of 17% would fail any statistical testing, this is fact, so indeed the poll isn't right or wrong...it's just not worth considering.

Oh come off it, you're starting to sound silly now. 17% / 630+ responses is perfectly good enough to get a good idea of what a group of people think. We're not talking about asking 5 people out of a group of 25. The GE polling is always done on a sample of about 1,000 or so people (or a few hundredths of 1% of the population), is far more complex to process and even with its errors in 2015 the polls were only about 5% out.

No, it is you who is looking silly. If you had actually read the report you would have noticed the following:-

IpsosMORI said:

Technical note

639 respondents completed the online survey between 19th to 27th May 2016. The survey was undertaken online with invitations sent out to non-student members of the Royal Economic Society (RES) and the Society of Business Economists (SBE). Reported figures are based on unweighted data and so should only be taken as representative of those who responded. Overall 3,818 invitations were sent out, with a response rate of approximately 17%. For questions where respondents were asked to provide reasons for their answers, respondents were presented with a pre-defined prompt list.

They are quite clear. The data are unweighted and therefore cannot be extrapolated.

I did read it. So as I said a couple of posts up, if the unweighted data is so bad and significantly excludes those in favor of Brexit, show me. And if the poll is so useless and not representative, why are IposMORI even publishing it? No wait, I know, they're a lefty organisation right?

[Mario149]

don4l said:

So, why did we not use the veto to stop Maastricht, or Lisbon?

If you are gullible enough to believe Cameron, then perhaps you could help us out by telling us which of the following clips is the truth and which is the lie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLTTjWLyBhY

Without having been there myself, one assumes our government thought the overall Treaty would be of benefit to the UK. Just as I would expect them to agree to anything that met those criteria in the future.

Ref your video, really? To paraphrase: "You'r doing a valuable job and I can support your membership into our club providing you meet the criteria" does not equate to "I'm giving the okay for you to join tomorrow". And from a slightly different angle, were you seriously expecting him to tell, what appears to be a Turkish audience in public, that while their country is in a state they're not getting anywhere near the EU?