Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How opinion on Brexit has moved since the referendum

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 22 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How opinion on Brexit has moved since the referendum

Prospect

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 873
    First like rejoin
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,077
    tpfkar said:

    First like rejoin

    which decade though?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    Great sarcasm in the final paragraph.

    The big question is how public and political opinion reacts in the days after a second referendum is announced and the burden of adherence to the 2016 result is lifted.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463
    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited February 22
    Given the EU referendum had the biggest turnout of any UK wide poll since 1992 why on earth should we expect non voters in EU referendum 1 to turn out in any EU referendum 2? On that basis there is virtually no change in opinion from that at the time of the Leave vote
  • My first and second post have disappeared.
  • DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    HYUFD said:

    Given the EU referendum had the biggest turnout of any UK wide poll since 1992 why on earth should we expect non voters in EU referendum 1 to turn out in any EU referendum 2? On that basis there us virtually no change in opinion from that at the time of the Leave vote

    As Mike pointed out, some people were non voters because they weren't eligible to vote. Not only 16-18 year olds, but long term resident EU citizens who acquired British passports after the referendum.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 873

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    That happened to me yesterday actually. Thought I was being blackballed
  • Remain dies as a concept 29/05/2019

    There is no guarantee that all those who support Remain now would automatically support Rejoin. Inertia is a powerful force and once we're out rejoining is not the same as never leaving in the first place.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,306
    tpfkar said:

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    That happened to me yesterday actually. Thought I was being blackballed

    Mike does it for the lolz.

    (actually a Vanilla bug)

  • tpfkar said:

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    That happened to me yesterday actually. Thought I was being blackballed
    It’s a vanilla issue that happens at the start of a thread.

    They end up here

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/categories/general
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    Remain dies as a concept 29/05/2019

    There is no guarantee that all those who support Remain now would automatically support Rejoin. Inertia is a powerful force and once we're out rejoining is not the same as never leaving in the first place.

    Has the Article 50 period been extended to May?

    If we exit, we'll go into a status quo "vassal state" position, so Rejoin will suddenly have absolute ownership of the "take back control" message.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676

    HYUFD said:

    Given the EU referendum had the biggest turnout of any UK wide poll since 1992 why on earth should we expect non voters in EU referendum 1 to turn out in any EU referendum 2? On that basis there us virtually no change in opinion from that at the time of the Leave vote

    As Mike pointed out, some people were non voters because they weren't eligible to vote. Not only 16-18 year olds, but long term resident EU citizens who acquired British passports after the referendum.
    18 to 20 year olds hardly ever vote anyway and I expect at least as many EU citizens with British passports have returned to the EU as acquired British citizenship
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    edited February 22
    On the bus I doubt many will notice the changed wording and just associate it with leave. It will have negligable effect

    The opinion is static on the EU and is unlikely to change unless something unexpected comes along. It will continue to be divisive for years to come, sadly

    On the lecturers strike all the spokespeople interviewed today studiously ignore the 6 billion pension deficit but as public sector workers they no doubt think it is petty cash and someone else will pay
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,334

    tpfkar said:

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    That happened to me yesterday actually. Thought I was being blackballed

    Mike does it for the lolz.

    (actually a Vanilla bug)

    Your profile pic is very applicable to the last thread. ;)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,493

    Remain dies as a concept 29/05/2019

    There is no guarantee that all those who support Remain now would automatically support Rejoin. Inertia is a powerful force and once we're out rejoining is not the same as never leaving in the first place.

    Has the Article 50 period been extended to May?

    If we exit, we'll go into a status quo "vassal state" position, so Rejoin will suddenly have absolute ownership of the "take back control" message.
    What's the status of your bet? If we "leave" in 2019 but, say, absolutely everything stays the same, do you win or Sean?
  • Remain dies as a concept 29/05/2019

    There is no guarantee that all those who support Remain now would automatically support Rejoin. Inertia is a powerful force and once we're out rejoining is not the same as never leaving in the first place.

    Has the Article 50 period been extended to May?

    If we exit, we'll go into a status quo "vassal state" position, so Rejoin will suddenly have absolute ownership of the "take back control" message.
    Typo.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    TOPPING said:

    Remain dies as a concept 29/05/2019

    There is no guarantee that all those who support Remain now would automatically support Rejoin. Inertia is a powerful force and once we're out rejoining is not the same as never leaving in the first place.

    Has the Article 50 period been extended to May?

    If we exit, we'll go into a status quo "vassal state" position, so Rejoin will suddenly have absolute ownership of the "take back control" message.
    What's the status of your bet? If we "leave" in 2019 but, say, absolutely everything stays the same, do you win or Sean?
    It would depend on the date of entry into force of the A50 agreement so it depends how the transition is arranged legally. My assumption is that Sean would win if that happens (unless we've rejoined by the end of 2019).
  • TOPPING said:

    Remain dies as a concept 29/05/2019

    There is no guarantee that all those who support Remain now would automatically support Rejoin. Inertia is a powerful force and once we're out rejoining is not the same as never leaving in the first place.

    Has the Article 50 period been extended to May?

    If we exit, we'll go into a status quo "vassal state" position, so Rejoin will suddenly have absolute ownership of the "take back control" message.
    What's the status of your bet? If we "leave" in 2019 but, say, absolutely everything stays the same, do you win or Sean?
    Until 31st December 2020
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,938
    To my eye it looks like more Remain voters are switching to Leave than vice versa. The green line going to Leave is thicker than the red line going Remain.

    What am I missing?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    Very close but TSE is right according to Wiki.

    1992 General Election: 33,614,074
    2016 Referendum: 33,577,342

    So 1992 has it by a whisker.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669
    I'm not convinced by this. Probably less than 3% of the current electorate were too young to vote in June 2016, which'd be about 10% of the current electorate that didn't vote then. That's a very small portion to dominate a swing - particularly when we know that the 18-24 age group has a low turnout as a rule anyway.

    The other inference - that a very large number of DNVs from 2016 would vote an an EURef2 (and would vote for the Brussels bureaucracy at that), seems counter-intuitive at best. Most of those who don't vote in a 72% turnout are likely to be very disengaged from politics. My expectation is that the vast majority of those who could have voted but didn't in 2016, wouldn't vote at a second time of asking.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463
    edited February 22

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    Great sarcasm in the final paragraph.

    The big question is how public and political opinion reacts in the days after a second referendum is announced and the burden of adherence to the 2016 result is lifted.

    Mrs May had every political reason to call a general election in 2017. She has just about every reason not to support an EU referendum in 2018/19.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,819
    For those like me hoping for a soft Brexit from Labour - this is a hopeful sign:

    "Outriders Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke have tabled the amendment [to stay in a customs union], and with Labour’s support it would almost certainly be carried — the surest sign of which is that Tory whips have just delayed the vote."

    https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-rift-over-customs-union-is-a-gift-for-corbyn-a3773201.html
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I have very little sympathy for people who didnt vote in the referendum, and who now say they want the UK to stay in the EU.

    By not voting, they disenfranchised themselves.

    Children are taught in Citizenship classes at school that if they dont get out and vote, then they cant really complain if they get the government they dont like, or if things happen they dont like.

    Were these non voters not paying attention in class? Or are they just dumb?

    Whatever, they cannot expect a new referendum just because they did not get off their ass on referendum day, anymore than general elections can be re-run because people who didnt vote dont like the government.

    The one sound argument that remoaners do have on this issue -and I am surprised they dont make more of it -was the failure to give the vote in the referendum to 16-18 year olds. This was an injustice -and again if the leader of the opposition had made a big issue of it, it would have been much more difficult for the government to refuse.

    There has to come a point however when remoaners instead of focussing all their energy on the futility of stopping Brexit, for which there was the biggest vote for change in British political history, and transferring that energy post Brexit to rejoining the EU -after a referendum. That way, the democratic wishes of those who voted to leave in 2016 will be honoured, while at the same time giving a voice and an opportunity for those who want the UK to be in the EU, particularly those who were denied, or denied themselves such a voice in 2016.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 201
    OK some possibly wishful thinking assumptions:

    9% of remainers have moved. I can't believe they thought remain was a good idea then and now they are convinced it should be leave because it is all going soooo well. I suspect they are more of the mood of: it was a democratic decision, lets get on with it, etc.

    However that argument can't be used for the 14% of leave voters moving so their motives must be different, i.e. this is one hell of a cockup; thought it would be easier than this, etc!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    RoyalBlue said:

    To my eye it looks like more Remain voters are switching to Leave than vice versa. The green line going to Leave is thicker than the red line going Remain.

    What am I missing?

    It was obviously drawn by a Lib Dem Leaver as the numbers at the bottom tell a different story.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,306
    edited February 22
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.

    1992 brought us the Cones Hotline.

    Will 2016 bring us the Immigrant Hotline?

    "Hello, I've seen some people standing around, look like immigrants, don't think they should be here."

  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,092
    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    As mentioned in the header, some of the DNV were too young to vote.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    Going off the Wikipedia pages

    EURef: 33,577,342 votes cast
    1992GE: 33,614,074 votes cast

    The 1992 figure may be higher - I don't know whether that includes ballot papers ruled invalid (the EURef figure does: it's 33,551,983 on valid votes).
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 803

    I'm not convinced by this. Probably less than 3% of the current electorate were too young to vote in June 2016, which'd be about 10% of the current electorate that didn't vote then. That's a very small portion to dominate a swing - particularly when we know that the 18-24 age group has a low turnout as a rule anyway.

    The other inference - that a very large number of DNVs from 2016 would vote an an EURef2 (and would vote for the Brussels bureaucracy at that), seems counter-intuitive at best. Most of those who don't vote in a 72% turnout are likely to be very disengaged from politics. My expectation is that the vast majority of those who could have voted but didn't in 2016, wouldn't vote at a second time of asking.

    Some would have been affected by what they see as what's happened since. They might have thought, cynically, "Oh, not much will change - they won't let it."
    Now they don't believe that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    Very close but TSE is right according to Wiki.

    1992 General Election: 33,614,074
    2016 Referendum: 33,577,342

    So 1992 has it by a whisker.
    John Major was incredible in that campaign, out on his soapbox taking on all comers. And Kinnock made some of the finest speeches since Churchill. It was a great election which really energised the nation. 77.7% turnout. Wow. In what will hopefully prove to be the last elections to the European Parliament turnout was 35.6%, less than half.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,819
    On topic - am I the only one finding this figure confusing?

    It also doesn't give us a clear sense of how big the groups at the top are and so how many people have switched their views comparatively?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    The dog that didn't bark is that people would rally round a decision that has been taken, and get with the programme. That hasn't happened. Leavers are opting out of the programme too, leaving it up to erstwhile Remainers to struggle to implement a policy they think is a mistake.

    Big mess.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    What, like the ones who were too young to vote ?
    I'm not sure 'can't be arsed' is a particularly accurate description of their views ...if you put that view to my youngest, you'd get a thick ear.

    Still, absent a much larger move in the polls, the referendum is highly unlikely to be overturned.

  • kjh said:

    OK some possibly wishful thinking assumptions:

    9% of remainers have moved. I can't believe they thought remain was a good idea then and now they are convinced it should be leave because it is all going soooo well. I suspect they are more of the mood of: it was a democratic decision, lets get on with it, etc.

    However that argument can't be used for the 14% of leave voters moving so their motives must be different, i.e. this is one hell of a cockup; thought it would be easier than this, etc!

    Except it is going so well.

    We were told there'd be an immediate recession, sky rocketing interest rates and inflation, mass unemployment, stock market and house price collapses, a punishment budget etc

    Instead we have had no recession, continuing growth, record high employment, lowest unemployment rate since before we joined the EEC, interest rates as they were before the referendum, inflation at standard levels, record high stock market prices and house price inflation continuing at a standard rate.

    There could definitely be some who fell for the fearmongering and have seen what's happened since and thought "well that's not too bad afterall".
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,339
    FF43 said:

    The dog that didn't bark is that people would rally round a decision that has been taken, and get with the programme. That hasn't happened.

    This, in fact, is what happened...

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    stevef said:

    I have very little sympathy for people who didnt vote in the referendum, and who now say they want the UK to stay in the EU.

    By not voting, they disenfranchised themselves.

    Children are taught in Citizenship classes at school that if they dont get out and vote, then they cant really complain if they get the government they dont like, or if things happen they dont like.

    Were these non voters not paying attention in class? Or are they just dumb?

    Whatever, they cannot expect a new referendum just because they did not get off their ass on referendum day, anymore than general elections can be re-run because people who didnt vote dont like the government.

    The one sound argument that remoaners do have on this issue -and I am surprised they dont make more of it -was the failure to give the vote in the referendum to 16-18 year olds. This was an injustice -and again if the leader of the opposition had made a big issue of it, it would have been much more difficult for the government to refuse.

    There has to come a point however when remoaners instead of focussing all their energy on the futility of stopping Brexit, for which there was the biggest vote for change in British political history, and transferring that energy post Brexit to rejoining the EU -after a referendum. That way, the democratic wishes of those who voted to leave in 2016 will be honoured, while at the same time giving a voice and an opportunity for those who want the UK to be in the EU, particularly those who were denied, or denied themselves such a voice in 2016.

    It is not a particularly convincing democratic argument to claim that those who failed to vote should lose the right to subsequent votes.
    Your sympathy is neither here nor there.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 873
    Does the 51% DNV -> Remain include the 3m EU citizens who can't vote?
    I'd have thought an overwhelming majority would have not been able to vote and then would prefer Remain today. If so, it's a pretty meaningless stat, unless there is a serious move to extend the franchise to EU citizens for a rematch.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    And if a subsequent referendum were to be the highest ever... ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    And if a subsequent referendum were to be the highest ever... ?
    20 million votes for Remain is a nice target.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    rkrkrk said:

    On topic - am I the only one finding this figure confusing?

    It also doesn't give us a clear sense of how big the groups at the top are and so how many people have switched their views comparatively?

    Turnout was 72.21% - so the maximum that Didn't Vote column could represent is 27.79%. But then there's deaths of those on the register, so it would be somewhat lower.

    That right hand column therefore represents maybe 1 in 5 of those who could have voted. Assuming they now have an opinion and could be arsed to get out and vote this time, rather than still be "meh, what's the point?" about it all.

    So it looks like a classic LibDem piece of artwork!
  • Nigelb said:

    stevef said:

    I have very little sympathy for people who didnt vote in the referendum, and who now say they want the UK to stay in the EU.

    By not voting, they disenfranchised themselves.

    Children are taught in Citizenship classes at school that if they dont get out and vote, then they cant really complain if they get the government they dont like, or if things happen they dont like.

    Were these non voters not paying attention in class? Or are they just dumb?

    Whatever, they cannot expect a new referendum just because they did not get off their ass on referendum day, anymore than general elections can be re-run because people who didnt vote dont like the government.

    The one sound argument that remoaners do have on this issue -and I am surprised they dont make more of it -was the failure to give the vote in the referendum to 16-18 year olds. This was an injustice -and again if the leader of the opposition had made a big issue of it, it would have been much more difficult for the government to refuse.

    There has to come a point however when remoaners instead of focussing all their energy on the futility of stopping Brexit, for which there was the biggest vote for change in British political history, and transferring that energy post Brexit to rejoining the EU -after a referendum. That way, the democratic wishes of those who voted to leave in 2016 will be honoured, while at the same time giving a voice and an opportunity for those who want the UK to be in the EU, particularly those who were denied, or denied themselves such a voice in 2016.

    It is not a particularly convincing democratic argument to claim that those who failed to vote should lose the right to subsequent votes.
    Your sympathy is neither here nor there.
    I don't see how he says they should lose their right to subsequent votes. If in 40 years there's another vote and they're still around then of course they'll have the right to vote just as those who got the right to vote in 1973 and were still around got one again in 2016 whether they'd voted or not originally.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    I'm not convinced by this. Probably less than 3% of the current electorate were too young to vote in June 2016, which'd be about 10% of the current electorate that didn't vote then. That's a very small portion to dominate a swing - particularly when we know that the 18-24 age group has a low turnout as a rule anyway...

    And what percentage by this time next year ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    It's the new PB QC process ?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,661

    I'm not convinced by this. Probably less than 3% of the current electorate were too young to vote in June 2016, which'd be about 10% of the current electorate that didn't vote then. That's a very small portion to dominate a swing - particularly when we know that the 18-24 age group has a low turnout as a rule anyway.

    The other inference - that a very large number of DNVs from 2016 would vote an an EURef2 (and would vote for the Brussels bureaucracy at that), seems counter-intuitive at best. Most of those who don't vote in a 72% turnout are likely to be very disengaged from politics. My expectation is that the vast majority of those who could have voted but didn't in 2016, wouldn't vote at a second time of asking.

    Some would have been affected by what they see as what's happened since. They might have thought, cynically, "Oh, not much will change - they won't let it."
    Now they don't believe that.
    The Leavers were saying only good things would happen (£350million/wk to the NHS, lower immigration) and that no bad things wouldn't happen as that suggestion was just 'project fear'.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,207

    There could definitely be some who fell for the fearmongering and have seen what's happened since and thought "well that's not too bad afterall".

    I think most of the public do not care much about the issue. Politicians and the media on the other hand think that leaving the EU is the most important thing in human history. As I've said many times before, if leaving the EU is the biggest problem we face in the medium term we will be a very fortunate people.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,938

    RoyalBlue said:

    To my eye it looks like more Remain voters are switching to Leave than vice versa. The green line going to Leave is thicker than the red line going Remain.

    What am I missing?

    It was obviously drawn by a Lib Dem Leaver as the numbers at the bottom tell a different story.
    Very good :tongue:

    As I’m not a subscriber I can’t read the article. Would be good to read all the figures rather than just some.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    rkrkrk said:

    On topic - am I the only one finding this figure confusing?

    It also doesn't give us a clear sense of how big the groups at the top are and so how many people have switched their views comparatively?

    Turnout was 72.21% - so the maximum that Didn't Vote column could represent is 27.79%. But then there's deaths of those on the register, so it would be somewhat lower.

    That right hand column therefore represents maybe 1 in 5 of those who could have voted. Assuming they now have an opinion and could be arsed to get out and vote this time, rather than still be "meh, what's the point?" about it all.

    So it looks like a classic LibDem piece of artwork!
    There's also new entrants onto the roll. With deaths, you also have to compare deaths among those who voted and those who didn't. As the older groups had higher turnouts, chances are that turnout among those who've since died was higher than the average. You also have to take double-registrations among - for example - students into account.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    These are the properties Manafort put up to make bail...
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-asking-if-manafort-promised-banker-white-house-job-return-n849916

    Mueller is not messing around.
    can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever...
  • rkrkrk said:

    On topic - am I the only one finding this figure confusing?

    It also doesn't give us a clear sense of how big the groups at the top are and so how many people have switched their views comparatively?

    Turnout was 72.21% - so the maximum that Didn't Vote column could represent is 27.79%. But then there's deaths of those on the register, so it would be somewhat lower.

    That right hand column therefore represents maybe 1 in 5 of those who could have voted. Assuming they now have an opinion and could be arsed to get out and vote this time, rather than still be "meh, what's the point?" about it all.

    So it looks like a classic LibDem piece of artwork!
    Wash your mouth.

    It was created by Professor Sir John Curtice (pbuh)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
    But you love it! (So do I really)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    FF43 said:

    The dog that didn't bark is that people would rally round a decision that has been taken, and get with the programme. That hasn't happened. Leavers are opting out of the programme too, leaving it up to erstwhile Remainers to struggle to implement a policy they think is a mistake.

    Big mess.

    The route to unifying the country lies in building a consensus that we were right to vote to leave the EU in 2016, but would be wrong to leave it in 2019.
  • Nigelb said:

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    It's the new PB QC process ?
    The PB QC process will consist of two questions

    1) Do you like pineapple on pizza?

    2) Is AV the greatest voting system known to man?

    Your answers will determine if your comments automatically end in the spam trap.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
    But you love it! (So do I really)
    These two Arsenal fans arguing is pedantry at its finest/worst

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/football/two-arsenal-fans-engage-in-possibly-the-best-twitter-argument-of-all-time-28446
  • FF43 said:

    The dog that didn't bark is that people would rally round a decision that has been taken, and get with the programme. That hasn't happened. Leavers are opting out of the programme too, leaving it up to erstwhile Remainers to struggle to implement a policy they think is a mistake.

    Big mess.

    The route to unifying the country lies in building a consensus that we were right to vote to leave the EU in 2016, but would be wrong to leave it in 2019.
    Can we have a vote in 2021 to leave again? We can keep voting and completely screw the country for ever since that seems to be your aim.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    rkrkrk said:

    On topic - am I the only one finding this figure confusing?

    It also doesn't give us a clear sense of how big the groups at the top are and so how many people have switched their views comparatively?

    Turnout was 72.21% - so the maximum that Didn't Vote column could represent is 27.79%. But then there's deaths of those on the register, so it would be somewhat lower.

    That right hand column therefore represents maybe 1 in 5 of those who could have voted. Assuming they now have an opinion and could be arsed to get out and vote this time, rather than still be "meh, what's the point?" about it all.

    So it looks like a classic LibDem piece of artwork!
    Wash your mouth.

    It was created by Professor Sir John Curtice (pbuh)
    I only said "it looks like". Just because it has four legs, a waggy tail, sharp teeth and chases cats, that doesn't automatically mean it's a dog.....

    And besides, everyone has off days.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463
    Scott_P said:
    In fairness Remain didn't have to pay for it being used by remainers every other day.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    And if a subsequent referendum were to be the highest ever... ?
    20 million votes for Remain is a nice target.
    Get breeding.....
  • I'm not convinced by this. Probably less than 3% of the current electorate were too young to vote in June 2016, which'd be about 10% of the current electorate that didn't vote then. That's a very small portion to dominate a swing - particularly when we know that the 18-24 age group has a low turnout as a rule anyway.

    The other inference - that a very large number of DNVs from 2016 would vote an an EURef2 (and would vote for the Brussels bureaucracy at that), seems counter-intuitive at best. Most of those who don't vote in a 72% turnout are likely to be very disengaged from politics. My expectation is that the vast majority of those who could have voted but didn't in 2016, wouldn't vote at a second time of asking.

    Some would have been affected by what they see as what's happened since. They might have thought, cynically, "Oh, not much will change - they won't let it."
    Now they don't believe that.
    The Leavers were saying only good things would happen (£350million/wk to the NHS, lower immigration) and that no bad things wouldn't happen as that suggestion was just 'project fear'.
    And the Remainers were saying only bad things would happen and that nothing bad would happen.if we stayed in.

    It's called politics.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    Its OK that was a long time ago and we have enjoyed the other 11,539

    xx
  • rkrkrk said:

    On topic - am I the only one finding this figure confusing?

    It also doesn't give us a clear sense of how big the groups at the top are and so how many people have switched their views comparatively?

    Turnout was 72.21% - so the maximum that Didn't Vote column could represent is 27.79%. But then there's deaths of those on the register, so it would be somewhat lower.

    That right hand column therefore represents maybe 1 in 5 of those who could have voted. Assuming they now have an opinion and could be arsed to get out and vote this time, rather than still be "meh, what's the point?" about it all.

    So it looks like a classic LibDem piece of artwork!
    Wash your mouth.

    It was created by Professor Sir John Curtice (pbuh)
    I only said "it looks like". Just because it has four legs, a waggy tail, sharp teeth and chases cats, that doesn't automatically mean it's a dog.....

    And besides, everyone has off days.
    Sir John doesn’t.

    He does the exit poll.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
    But you love it! (So do I really)
    These two Arsenal fans arguing is pedantry at its finest/worst

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/football/two-arsenal-fans-engage-in-possibly-the-best-twitter-argument-of-all-time-28446
    Only thing that could have made that exchange better is someone at the end saying he's actually 27. ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
    But you love it! (So do I really)
    These two Arsenal fans arguing is pedantry at its finest/worst

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/football/two-arsenal-fans-engage-in-possibly-the-best-twitter-argument-of-all-time-28446
    That makes some of our Brexit debates look profound.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
    But you love it! (So do I really)
    These two Arsenal fans arguing is pedantry at its finest/worst

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/football/two-arsenal-fans-engage-in-possibly-the-best-twitter-argument-of-all-time-28446
    "He's a lot nearer 29 than he is 28. That's a fact."

    Brilliant.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    F1: hmm. New Ferrari sidepod inlets are very small. I wonder if it'll be prone to spontaneous combustion.

    Also, good afternoon, everyone.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,768

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    And if a subsequent referendum were to be the highest ever... ?
    20 million votes for Remain is a nice target.
    Get breeding.....
    Ah, memories, memories!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    F1: hmm. New Ferrari sidepod inlets are very small. I wonder if it'll be prone to spontaneous combustion.

    Also, good afternoon, everyone.

    Well, Ferrari is an anagram of "Arr...fire!!!!"
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
    But you love it! (So do I really)
    These two Arsenal fans arguing is pedantry at its finest/worst

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/football/two-arsenal-fans-engage-in-possibly-the-best-twitter-argument-of-all-time-28446
    "He's a lot nearer 29 than he is 28. That's a fact."

    Brilliant.....
    https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751

    Take a deep breath.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,493

    Nigelb said:

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    It's the new PB QC process ?
    The PB QC process will consist of two questions

    1) Do you like pineapple on pizza?

    2) Is AV the greatest voting system known to man?

    Your answers will determine if your comments automatically end in the spam trap.
    yebbut what music will be playing in the background as the questions are asked?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,570
    I admire the stamina of those posters who are happy to debate this all day, every day - day-in, day-out - making the same points in the same discussions over and over again.
  • My first and second post have disappeared.

    Its OK that was a long time ago and we have enjoyed the other 11,539

    xx
    +1
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    edited February 22

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    We had 33.5m votes in the referendum, the largest vote in the UK on anything ever. Basically, everyone who has ever applied their mind to this for a minute had the opportunity to vote and the vast majority of them took it. And we are now supposed to be influenced by those who didn't bother to vote?

    It shows one of the dangers of polling. Anyone who DNV'd on this one really can't be arsed.

    More people voted in the 1992 general election.
    Don't think so in absolute numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992
    It must be extremely close.

    I accept that the percentage of participation was higher.
    From your link.

    Total votes cast in 1992: 33,614,074

    Total votes cast in 2016: 33,577,342

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
    Ok, this was the second highest vote in the UK on anything ever.
    Pedantry is awful.
    But you love it! (So do I really)
    These two Arsenal fans arguing is pedantry at its finest/worst

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/football/two-arsenal-fans-engage-in-possibly-the-best-twitter-argument-of-all-time-28446
    "He's a lot nearer 29 than he is 28. That's a fact."

    Brilliant.....
    https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751

    Take a deep breath.
    Proves my long-held belief that exercise is bad for the brain.....

    *goes to watch The Beatles documentary "Eight Days a Week"......*
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. Mark, if that comment were twice as silly and entirely unknowing, you could be a sports commentator ;)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,296

    rkrkrk said:

    On topic - am I the only one finding this figure confusing?

    It also doesn't give us a clear sense of how big the groups at the top are and so how many people have switched their views comparatively?

    Turnout was 72.21% - so the maximum that Didn't Vote column could represent is 27.79%. But then there's deaths of those on the register, so it would be somewhat lower.

    That right hand column therefore represents maybe 1 in 5 of those who could have voted. Assuming they now have an opinion and could be arsed to get out and vote this time, rather than still be "meh, what's the point?" about it all.

    So it looks like a classic LibDem piece of artwork!
    Wash your mouth.

    It was created by Professor Sir John Curtice (pbuh)
    Who when he comes down from Mt Olympus is a Libdem I believe.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463
    My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.

    All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.

    This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,397

    I admire the stamina of those posters who are happy to debate this all day, every day - day-in, day-out - making the same points in the same discussions over and over again.

    Indefatigability.
    Goes down a bomb in Baghdad.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    I admire the stamina of those posters who are happy to debate this all day, every day - day-in, day-out - making the same points in the same discussions over and over again.

    https://laughingsquid.com/someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet/
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,008

    I admire the stamina of those posters who are happy to debate this all day, every day - day-in, day-out - making the same points in the same discussions over and over again.

    So do I , it is never discussed now ( unlike 2016 )with my family , friends or work colleagues.On a Christmas meal out from work, someone brought it up .However he seemed surprised that the table was completely split on how they voted ,and the subject was quickly dropped.Do not know if this is typical.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. L, it's probably difficult for children to take on board their parents' perspective sometimes, because they move from assuming you know everything, to realising you don't, and then (if they're irksome as teenagers) thinking you know nothing. Rowing back to realising parents have useful experience and may even be somewhat intelligent takes a little while ;)

    The stance you outline is also moving the EU and its member states further from democratic nation-states towards bureaucratic conformity.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,768
    DavidL said:

    My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.

    All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.

    This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.

    I can see where you are coming from with this. Personally it doesn’t worry me too much, but I can see why it might.
    It doesn’t worry me, not because I’m an old man, but because I think that it shows a logical progression.
  • DavidL said:

    My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.

    All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.

    This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.

    Very interesting
  • TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    My first and second post have disappeared.

    It's the new PB QC process ?
    The PB QC process will consist of two questions

    1) Do you like pineapple on pizza?

    2) Is AV the greatest voting system known to man?

    Your answers will determine if your comments automatically end in the spam trap.
    yebbut what music will be playing in the background as the questions are asked?
    Teenage Kicks by Busted The Undertones.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,570
    DavidL said:

    My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.

    All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.

    This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.

    An exceptionally good, and revealing, post which unlike most on this thread actually tells us something both interesting and new.

    There is a fundamental political cultural divide between the UK and EU that reached breaking point in 2016, and cannot be bridged.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,730
    DavidL said:

    My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.

    All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.

    This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.

    Your daughter has taken her first step on the path to enlightenment.

    If you believe in such a thing as EU citizenship, it makes sense that the laws should be similar throughout all member States. I encountered this a few years ago, when there were proposals for an EU inheritance law, and I drafted a long submission against, on behalf of Wood Green Animal Shelters.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463

    Mr. L, it's probably difficult for children to take on board their parents' perspective sometimes, because they move from assuming you know everything, to realising you don't, and then (if they're irksome as teenagers) thinking you know nothing. Rowing back to realising parents have useful experience and may even be somewhat intelligent takes a little while ;)

    The stance you outline is also moving the EU and its member states further from democratic nation-states towards bureaucratic conformity.

    I look forward to the Nirvana of the last happy state.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    Mr. Mark, if that comment were twice as silly and entirely unknowing, you could be a sports commentator ;)

    I'm not sure I could get twice as silly.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    DavidL said:

    Mr. L, it's probably difficult for children to take on board their parents' perspective sometimes, because they move from assuming you know everything, to realising you don't, and then (if they're irksome as teenagers) thinking you know nothing. Rowing back to realising parents have useful experience and may even be somewhat intelligent takes a little while ;)

    The stance you outline is also moving the EU and its member states further from democratic nation-states towards bureaucratic conformity.

    I look forward to the Nirvana of the last happy state.
    You may require Lithium....
  • DavidL said:

    Mr. L, it's probably difficult for children to take on board their parents' perspective sometimes, because they move from assuming you know everything, to realising you don't, and then (if they're irksome as teenagers) thinking you know nothing. Rowing back to realising parents have useful experience and may even be somewhat intelligent takes a little while ;)

    The stance you outline is also moving the EU and its member states further from democratic nation-states towards bureaucratic conformity.

    I look forward to the Nirvana of the last happy state.
    You may require Lithium....
    Nevermind.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.

    All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.

    This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.

    Your daughter has taken her first step on the path to enlightenment.

    If you believe in such a thing as EU citizenship, it makes sense that the laws should be similar throughout all member States. I encountered this a few years ago, when there were proposals for an EU inheritance law, and I drafted a long submission against, on behalf of Wood Green Animal Shelters.
    The likes of @WilliamGlenn clearly does which is fair enough. I disagree with that view but can understand why some have it. It is a logically coherent position. What I find a little more trying is remainers who claim everything was going to be the same and fine if we had voted the other way or changed our mind. It won't and it wasn't.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,108
    Oh dear:

    https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2018/feb/22/the-solution-to-university-pensions-better-fund-managers

    Anthony Hesketh is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University Management School

    The article should serve as a warning against attending Lancaster University Management School, if that is the level of understanding by the lecturers. To see why, look at the comments, especially the one by 'northarbour'.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 201

    kjh said:

    OK some possibly wishful thinking assumptions:

    9% of remainers have moved. I can't believe they thought remain was a good idea then and now they are convinced it should be leave because it is all going soooo well. I suspect they are more of the mood of: it was a democratic decision, lets get on with it, etc.

    However that argument can't be used for the 14% of leave voters moving so their motives must be different, i.e. this is one hell of a cockup; thought it would be easier than this, etc!

    Except it is going so well.

    .
    If you say so.
This discussion has been closed.