Poll: Eu referendum prediction thread (poll please)

Darujhistan said:

I agree, I think he has.

Thinks he shouldn't be allowed to vote, isn't forced to vote either - but he's voting anyway.

Top class hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how I can be any clearer on anything I've said nor how to try and promote any further discussion on any of your 'counter arguments'. You just seem to be willingly unable to comprehend anything I've posted despite a number of other people having no problem in doing so!

At this point, I think I'll cut my losses and just take solace in the fact that my "uninformed", "hypocritical" and "contradictory" vote will cancel out your "fully informed" one

Can someone else take over please? - I think Caged has volunteered

Caged said:

You're doing "I know you are but what am I" and expecting to be taken seriously.

If you're struggling to see how electing a party on a broad set of issues isn't different to single-issue direct democracy then there's no point in carrying on with this.

Click to expand...

Well if we're not well informed enough to vote on one issue (the EU), how are we informed enough to vote on a raft of issues that include matters of the EU?

then there's no point in carrying on with this

Feel free to LEAVE at any time then.

I voted option 2 but am not so sure now. I think remain are in big trouble. TNS poll now giving leave a 7 point lead and the Sun backing brexit.

Remain really need to campaign their butts off over the next 7 days.

The fact that you see this as some sort of thing with winners and losers like it's a cup final is pretty stark evidence that it is too complicated for you to fully understand.

Six6siX said:

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how I can be any clearer on anything I've said nor how to try and promote any further discussion on any of your 'counter arguments'. You just seem to be willingly unable to comprehend anything I've posted despite a number of other people having no problem in doing so!

At this point, I think I'll cut my losses and just take solace in the fact that my "uninformed", "hypocritical" and "contradictory" vote will cancel out your "fully informed" one

Can someone else take over please? - I think Caged has volunteered

Click to expand...

You're plenty clear enough, just hypocritical and anti-democratic - just like the EU!

Bye bye then!

Caged said:

The fact that you see this as some sort of thing with winners and losers like it's a cup final is pretty stark evidence that it is too complicated for you to fully understand.

Click to expand...

Isn't it? one side will win and one will lose. At least that's how I understand it.

It's not me who claims not to understand it, its sixsixsix.

Maybe he's gone to away to inform himself.

Mulder said:

This is the act that prevents us from taking a schoolboy arsonist out of the classroom as enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into etc.

Click to expand...

Your mixing up two different things. The European Convention on Human Rights is from the Council of Europe not the EU. The UK joined it in the 50's long before we joined the EU. In fact it was a UK lawyer who wrote most of it so a lot of it was drawn from legal notions and concepts familiar to the UK.

The Human Rights Act was passed in 1998 by Parliament when we had a Labour Government. Essentially it allowed UK citizens to go to the UK courts to have the rights enumerated in the ECHR enforced directly by UK courts rather than needing to go to the European Court of Human Rights.

The examples you give sound suspiciously like Daily Fail drivel to me but I don't know the details of those cases. No system is perfect and sometimes individual cases can throw up frustrating results. Sometimes Jurors get it wrong, in fact around 40% of the time they don't convict maybe because of innocence maybe they got it wrong. It doesn't provide a sound argument for scrapping all jury trials though.

As it happens of the cases taken against the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights around 97% don't get accepted for an oral hearing, of those the Government wins around 2.5% of the 3% heard in oral hearings. So essentially the UK government loses 0.5% of cases taken to the ECHR. That doesn't sound too onerous to me.

Darujhistan said:

Isn't it? one side will win and one will lose. At least that's how I understand it.

It's not me who claims not to understand it, its sixsixsix.

Maybe he's gone to away to inform himself.

Click to expand...

Sorry but pretty much everything you have come out with provides pretty strong evidence that you clearly are not capable of making a fully informed decision on this at all.

It easy to understand that someone might not want a particular plebiscite to take place and yet when it does they will choose to take part in it. That is neither hypocritical nor anti-democratic.

Your inability to understand this really quite basic and simple point is not a good advert for your supposed intellectual capacity to understand a complex issue like membership of the EU.

So assuming Brexit happens, what happens to all those Brits who live and work in Europe? Won't they need passports? I suspect they will also end up paying extra property taxes and other taxes.

oldbag said:

So assuming Brexit happens, what happens to all those Brits who live and work in Europe? Won't they need passports? I suspect they will also end up paying extra property taxes and other taxes.

Click to expand...

They'll become normal immigrants. They'll get retirement visas, work visas or residency visas depending on their situation.

oldbag said:

So assuming Brexit happens, what happens to all those Brits who live and work in Europe? Won't they need passports? I suspect they will also end up paying extra property taxes and other taxes.

Click to expand...

i would assume it depends on the outcome of negotiations for exit under Art 50. If we joined the EEA or something to get access to the single market then most likely it would include free movement and that would go both ways so Brits could still live and work anywhere in the EU.

If we didn't do that then I would expect it to default to the normal immigration/visa rules of each country. So if a Brit wants to work in Germany they would need to get a visa through the normal application process. I would expect that a visa waiver arrangement would be set up without too much trouble and visitors from the EU or UK could still visit without needing a visa (as you can the USA for instance) but that would be unlikely to allow long term residence or rights to work.

My best guess is that those UK or EU citizens currently living and working in the UK/rest of EU will get some kind of one off special dispensation and be automatically issued a right to residence/work etc.

However worst case is that no agreement is reached and both UK resident EU nationals and UK citizens in the rest of the EU could be deported unless able to secure a visa on application. That would be a particularly harsh thing to do though so I don't think the EU would be that unreasonable in negotiations on that issue (i Think most discussion after Brexit will be incredibly hard and the EU won't give an inch to the UK).

BaronVonDuncs said:

Sorry but pretty much everything you have come out with provides pretty strong evidence that you clearly are not capable of making a fully informed decision on this at all.

It easy to understand that someone might not want a particular plebiscite to take place and yet when it does they will choose to take part in it. That is neither hypocritical nor anti-democratic.

Your inability to understand this really quite basic and simple point is not a good advert for your supposed intellectual capacity to understand a complex issue like membership of the EU.

Click to expand...

I'm very capable thanks. I understand his position, it's just self-serving disingenuous waffle. He's created a position for himself where he can do whatever he likes, whilst trying to deny the validity of anyone else's vote.

If we're no capable of voting in the ref, how are we capable of voting for a raft of issues which include the EU in a general election?

Two completely contradictory positions.

Darujhistan said:

I'm very capable thanks. I understand his position, it's just self-serving disingenuous waffle. He's created a position for himself where he can do whatever he likes, whilst trying to deny the validity of anyone else's vote.

If we're no capable of voting in the ref, how are we capable of voting for a raft of issues which include the EU in a general election?

Two completely contradictory positions.

Click to expand...

He has done nothing of the sort. He expressed the view that he didn't agree with the referendum taking place. As it is however taking place he will vote in it. That is really not that tough to understand.

Nothing he said is denying the validity of anyone's vote. The assertion is that having a binary question plebiscite on an extremely complex and important issue is in his view (and mine) not a good choice. That doesn't deny the validity of anyone's vote. The criticism is that in exercising their votes a lot of people will not be fully informed and thus will make a decision based on false information or incorrect assumptions. That creates a risk of a bad decision being made.

Ask yourself if you had to go to hospital to have surgery would you leave the key decisions to the surgeon with 16 years training or would like say a random selection of a hundred people to vote on all the decisions related to the operation?

We live in a complex modern society and thus we have developed a great many specialisations and expert positions because we recognise that training and experience can improve peoples ability to carry out tasks effectively and correctly. In my view Government is also a specialisation and the notion that the wide general public can simply apply their 'common sense' to these complex issues is farcical.

A General election is different because your not making a choice about issues themselves but about picking people to deal with those issues, its a representative system. Yes issues are a part of the discussion because you vote for a person who you believe will approach those issues in a way you support or they make promises as to what they might do but that is distinct from actually choosing the actions to be taken on an issue. To go back to our surgeon if I have a selection of 5 surgeons and they all tell me how they plan to carry out my surgery and I then choose which one I would like to do it that is not the same as choosing each decision involved in the operation. The concept of a representative democracy is basically the same.

In this referendum the quality of discussion is absolutely woeful. Its been a litany of lies, pandering to prejudice or meaningless soundbites and slogans. No proper engagement has really taken place and the complex issues are not being thrashed out properly, or subjected to any kind of rigorous forensic analysis by the main stream media and most politicians. Its a complete farce and yet the very future of our country and the condition of millions of peoples lives and livelihoods is dependant on it. Quite frankly the whole thing is incredibly depressing.

My biggest worry is that an awful lot of people are voting in this referendum based on emotion rather than reason. They have been sent into a frenzy by biased and often inaccurate reporting and campaigning and haven't taken the time to research and weigh up the pros and cons of remaining or leaving. It also concerns me that the most active voters (those aged 60 and over) are, according to polls, currently the most likely to vote leave and are also those who are least likely to witness the impact of leaving the EU.

It seems to me that leaving would accomplish very little other than remove our ability to have a say on many important matters, matters that would still an impact on us even if we voted to leave. We would still be a part of the UN, Nato, the World Trade Organisation, and be subject to many treaties and agreements with member states, but would no longer have the same power to affect change.

i'm soo split on this, i postal voted to remain but i'll be happy if we leave. brain reason to remain is, well less war over fishing rights, it needs more democracy though, we need a say in who the president of eu is, if there is one? or leader of some council. sooo more EU but more EU citizens vote for them.

If you haven't voted and want an impartial view of this whole referendum, if there can be one, here is a link to the parliament and it's summary view on the impact of a brexit. They have the full document for your viewing pleasure.

Voting leave, half expecting stay to win though.

The more things go on though (especially recent acts in the US and Paris) the more I think it will swing to a leave.

oldbag said:

So assuming Brexit happens, what happens to all those Brits who live and work in Europe? Won't they need passports? I suspect they will also end up paying extra property taxes and other taxes.

Click to expand...

They'd have needed passports anyway


The uk isn't in the schengan zone.

nicktay2605 said:

We would still be a part of the UN, Nato, the World Trade Organisation, and be subject to many treaties and agreements with member states, but would no longer have the same power to affect change.

Click to expand...

well actually if we leave we'll have a seat at the WTO.

We don't have one at the moment.

So we'll have more power to enact change there

but would no longer have the same power to affect change.


What change are we affecting now?

Border control?

Return to the supremacy of our courts?

Clawing back democracy?

Or are we half in and half out of a German led match to a EU superstate?