Poll: EU Referendum Voting Intentions

[Mr Jack]

The EU could provide that if they don't negotiate in good faith.

The problem is, of course, that pretty much everything that Cameron is talking about is either (a) wildly unreasonable or (b) would require a treaty change. There is almost no chance of anything involving (b) going through within the timescale that Cameron is talking about, especially considering that multiple EU countries are committed to a referendum on any treaty and since plenty of other countries will, quite reasonably, want changes of their own which will inevitably tangle things up further. So the chances of Cameron having anything to show before the referendum is basically zero even if the rest of the EU prostrate themselves before his demands.

Despite this, the Daily Mail and the Murdoch media will do its level to present any intransigence from the EU as "not negotiating in good faith" or "arrogant EU bureaucrats refuse to negotiate" and that has the potential to push the vote over to the 'No' camp.

 

[ubersonic]

Unless people have a strong emotional reason, they will almost always vote to maintain the status quo. Whether they turn out is another issue altogether.

That's my point, people who want change are more likely to make their voices heard and turn up to vote for it because they are emotional about it. People who are happy with the status quo are less likely to make their voice heard or show up to vote.

Cases in point, the ban on fox hunting being passed due to a vocal minority campaigning for it, it wasn't until it was a foregone conclusion that the silent majority actually started campaigning against it by which point it was too late. The Scottish Indyref was closer in votes than it was predicted/expected because the Yes supporters were more motivated to fight for the change they desired.

People who want out of the EU are more likely to vote/campaign than those who do not.

 

[MookJong]

Yes but hopefully for a reformed EU...

 

[MrMoonX]

Because unlike you, we're not all swivel eyed Marxists

What's Marxist about a federal state? Do you even know what Marxism is anyway?

 

[Efour]

Stay- But stop sulking on the sidelines and get BLOODY Involved.

Stop sending prats like that Ukip bloke to represent Us/You.

Its still going to be a rough ride for a good few more decades, i'd [un-educatedly] guess.

 

[Jono]

I'm going to vote No, at present.
I am open to being convinced otherwise.

I know there are risks in leaving, but I don't know what they are.
I want to make an INFORMED decision about which way I'll be voting on the day; at present I don't have the information I require, and I am hoping/expecting that all parties involved, on all sides of the debate both inside and outside of Europe will present things in a clear and honest way.

I bet they don't, though.

 

[kindai]

No one at all answered my question about whether or not we can support the current level of immigration. The lack of response tells its own story imo. Everyone knows we can't.

Exactly,

seems all you see every other week is news articles about shortages of homes.

You see all these refugees coming into the EU to get papers, then when asked they all say they are heading to the UK.

Why is that?

The simple fact is the kind of changes the public want to see, Cameron will not be able to negotiate.

You only have to look at how the EU suddenly opened up its arms "we are willing to work with the UK" within hours of the official election result being known because they are crapping themselves.

 

[Mr Jack]

Cases in point, the ban on fox hunting being passed due to a vocal minority campaigning for it, it wasn't until it was a foregone conclusion that the silent majority actually started campaigning against it by which point it was too late.

Silent majority? The majority of the UK population opposes fox hunting and has done for years. The idea that there is "silent majority" in favour of it is just bunkum. There's a vocal minority who want it re-legalised.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Silent majority? The majority of the UK population opposes fox hunting and has done for years. The idea that there is "silent majority" in favour of it is just bunkum. There's a vocal minority who want it re-legalised.

Says who; the same people who predicted the election results?

Anyway, we're often told that we need to ignore majority views on some issues to protect a minority. Maybe we should ignore the alleged majority on fox hunting to protect the minority of people who want to hunt?

 

[Repta]

My first instinct was to vote no but that is an emotional reaction not based on evidence. There is no way even if i spent now every hour until the vote that I could get a full and proper grasp of have positive and negative and how the fully effect the UK. Without that its impossible to make an informed decision so stick with status quo is the way to go.

Really there is no way a decision like this should be left up to the public, if should be made by a group of experts based on evidence. Not whatever rubbish the paper you read decides to print, which is how most people will decide

 

[Zethor]

Cameron talks big now but that's just a negotiation tool. His party will campaign to stay, along with most other parties. Despite having various interests and allegiances, politicians understand that leaving the EU would be insane. Furthermore, any party that would govern the country in the aftermath of an EU exit would probably go extinct soon afterwards.

 

[arknor]

Yes - No brainer for me, I'm Welsh and we pretty much depend on the EU due to being underfunded by the UK.

your a farmer? no wonder you don't want fox hunting to be banned they use your land that is subsidised by europe to hunt foxs?

 

[Repta]

What do you want to know? Must it be spoon fed?

There is no way the average person can make an informed decision on something as complex as this, no matter how spoon fed information is.

 

[mushtafa]

The results are surprising already! I don't personally know anyone who wants to stay in the EU.

 

[Mr Jack]

No one at all answered my question about whether or not we can support the current level of immigration. The lack of response tells its own story imo. Everyone knows we can't.

Ok, I'll bite:

Let me ask you something, net migration was recorded at 318,000 during 2014. How many of you really believe in their heart of hearts, that we can continue to support these levels?

Well, let's go through the problems in this statement: the first and most glaring is that half of that net migration was non-EU anyway, and a sizeable chunk of the EU migration - around 80,000 - was UK nationals returning anyway.

The second is the presumption that immigration will simply carry on at current levels indefinitely. I see little reason to think that is true. As living standards rise in Eastern Europe I would expect to see migration to the UK from these countries fall. I also question whether we're really seeing immigration on this scale. It seems to me that a large proportion, probably a majority, of recent EU immigrants are better characterised as migrant labour. It is likely they will return home later in their lives.

Then there's the problem that leaving the EU may not end free movement of Labour anyway. Euroskeptics like to point to Norway and Switzerland as successful model countries with free access to EU markets - as Euroskeptics claim we will continue to have - but the terms of their access require them to allow free movement of labour. It's pretty clear that much of Europe views this as be a non-negotiable feature of the market. If we want equal access to the EU markets we will, most likely, be forced to accept free movement of labour anyway.

So, I don't really accept your premise that immigration will be on that scale anyway or your premise that a 'No' vote would end it.

Having said that, I think that the levels of immigration we're experiencing are primarily beneficial to this country and will continue to be so, especially as our population ages. Immigrants are typically higher skilled, more flexible and more motivated than the average member of their country - pretty much by definition since they're the ones willing to travel overseas to better their lives - and so immigrants are of great benefit to the countries that accept them. This does not mean there aren't issues with housing and infrastructure to overcome but I see no reason, at all, to believe that these are not eminently solvable.

 

[robgmun]

What's Marxist about a federal state?

I'd rather not be ruled over a body that i did not vote for, do not have any say in and no way to remove them if an entire country wants to over throw them (because they're in a different country) That's a Marxist dictatorship and you're happy to give it all away.

Still at least the great unwashed can't protest outside parliament anymore when things go wrong because the Tories can just shrug their shoulders and say, "not our fault, you voted for a Marxist dictatorship"

Do you even know what Marxism is anyway?

Look in the mirror, that's what a Marxist is. Over the years you have come out with some really extreme left wing rhetoric, you have no one else to blame if that's the impression you give

 

[ubersonic]

What's Marxist about a federal state?

Not sure really, I don't understand the concept.

Do you even know what Marxism is anyway?

No

Fixed it!

 

[scorza]

My first instinct was to vote no but that is an emotional reaction not based on evidence. There is no way even if i spent now every hour until the vote that I could get a full and proper grasp of have positive and negative and how the fully effect the UK. Without that its impossible to make an informed decision so stick with status quo is the way to go.

Really there is no way a decision like this should be left up to the public, if should be made by a group of experts based on evidence. Not whatever rubbish the paper you read decides to print, which is how most people will decide

Decisions like this should only be left up to the public - this is our country and we should be consulted if they want to change who decides what. People are aware that votes like this don't come about very often - this will very likely be the only change people get to vote on our relationship with the EU in their lives - the last one was some time in the 1970s on joining the common market which bears no resemblance to the EU today. What is the EU going to look like in another 40 years time? Do we want to be a part of that? Of course, it's impossible to answer because you can't produce evidence for something that hasn't happened yet and I'm always very skeptical when people make predictions based on so-called "evidence" - remember the "evidence" showed that only 13,000 Polish workers would emigrate to the UK post 2001.

Fundamentally this is an emotive issue - do we want to be the UK, governed by the parliament that's governed us for centuries, or do we want to be a state within the EU, governed by the sort of people appointed to the EC or elected to the European Parliament?

 

[robgmun]

!

Fixed it!

 

[Mr Jack]

Says who; the same people who predicted the election results?

Yes, the polls predicted this election wrong therefore we should totally ignore all opinion polls ever and base our opinions about how strongly supported something is on our personal hunches

Anyway, we're often told that we need to ignore majority views on some issues to protect a minority. Maybe we should ignore the alleged majority on fox hunting to protect the minority of people who want to hunt?

The argument against fox hunting has never depended on its relative support among the populous. I was just correcting your clearly false assertion that fox hunting was supported by a "silent majority".