Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)

[Errol]

Cameron's totally disgusting performance last night, as he traitorously attempts to destroy the country, will be enough to drive many people to vote 'LEAVE'.

He is a dangerous fool of the highest order and unfit to hold office.

 

[scorza]

Yep, not just Cameron though. The idiot Labour leader too. Many postal votes in, do they get revealed to the PM early?

Shouldn't be. Not allowed to even count them until after polls have closed.

 

[John40]

Gerrymandering by the Govt. who would never have organised a 2 day extension to the registration process if it had not been to their advantage.

 

[Mr Jack]

Their predictions are little more than "rocking the boat is more risky than not rocking it". Anything beyond 2-3 years and they might as well be predicting the weather.

No, that's not how their predictions work, as you'd know if you'd read them. As for the weather, it's certainly true that we can't predict the weather on any particular day with any certainty but it's also true that we can make good predictions about how the climate will change.

 

[Aldav]

Just because we can't be certain how exactly it will pan out doesn't mean that there can't be informed opinion on what the likely outcome will be. Almost every reputable economic body that has made a prediction agrees that Brexit would hurt the UK economy. Just the uncertainty during negotiations should be enough to do meaningful damage.

The issue is how "informed" that "informed" opinion is. That would be from bodies like the IFS, with a fair bit of EU funding, and the IMF which, first, is led by the former French finance minister, and second, was so accurate about UK "austerity" plans and the devastating impact it would have on the UK economy that it had to apologise for being so utterly wrong.

These "informed" opinions are, in fact, just relying on numbers pumped out by econometric models which in turn are built on assumptions of the nature, and magnitude, of effects. Where these are assumptions based on a significant body of time-series data and times are normal, those assumptions have been tested, and are fairly accurate, by which I mean, have a decent prospect of being broadly right.

But we saw, post-2007/08 crash just how accurate those models are when times aren't normal, and that IMF apology over austerity measures underlined the point, and highlighted it in neon.

Brexit, if it happens, is utterly unprecedented, and none, none at all, of those models have historical data on which to test their assumptions of the hugely complex set of impacts of their models.

Those opinions, at least on the impact of Brexit, are not "informed" at all. They are relying on credibility, such as it is after being spectacularly wrong in the past, to give the imprimateur of supposedly "informed" opinion onto what boils down to a set of theoretical guesses of effects refined into formula and stuck in a damn great spreadsheet.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. Make those assumptions about the impact in a pessimistic way, and lo and behold, the models give pessimistic results. Make them optimistically and we get optimistic results. They're models, based on assumptions, based on theory and guesswork because nobody, including those "informed opinions" has any historical basis for a complex and unprecedented situation.

Before you rely too much on "informed opinion" just because they're supposedly renowned economic bodies, I would point out that two of the greastest theoretical economists in history, Keynes and Friedman, fundamentally disagreed even on basic principles never mind fine-tuning assumptions. Bung a more modern economist, like Leijonhufvud (under whom I studied briefly in the 70s, and who is about the one thing Yanis Varoufakis have in common, in terms of being influenced by) and it's like putting out a forest fire with dynamite - you can't predict the exact effect but you can expect a big bang.

Don't be too impressed by "informed" economists.

 

[Hagar]

Cameron's totally disgusting performance last night, as he traitorously attempts to destroy the country, will be enough to drive many people to vote 'LEAVE'.

He is a dangerous fool of the highest order and unfit to hold office.

Basically 'don't ask the question that you do not know the answer to'. Any lawyer should know this basic.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Doesn't matter what an individual MP thinks - the a Leave vote in the referendum would be a clear instruction from British voters to pass an Act of Parliament to quit the EU. There might be a few MPs who think their views on the subject outweigh the populations, but I suggest they will be few and far between. This isn't going to be an issue.

If it's 51% leave to 49% stay, I would imagine many MPs who feel we should not leave would say that it is far from a "clear instruction". I'm not saying that's right, but it is likely.

 

[Skunkworks]

No, that's not how their predictions work, as you'd know if you'd read them. As for the weather, it's certainly true that we can't predict the weather on any particular day with any certainty but it's also true that we can make good predictions about how the climate will change.

As each day goes by, being able to fact check the experts' predictions looks ever more likey.

 

[bam0]

there is the optimistic view that even if being outside EU trade barriers causes a drop in EU trade, we will be outside the EU barriers along with the rest of the planet, and that should significantly boost trade with them.

The idea that the trade we do with Europe is perfectly replaceable with trade to the rest of the world is laughable.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The idea that the trade we do with Europe is perfectly replaceable with trade to the rest of the world is laughable.

People forget that all trade is not equal. We need buyers for the things we make and provide as a service and countries in South America have different needs to Europe. My point is that many of the buyers of products and services that we provide are in Europe and changing the target market means changing our economy.

 

[Tefal]

People forget that all trade is not equal. We need buyers for the things we make and provide as a service and countries in South America have different needs to Europe. My point is that many of the buyers of products and services that we provide are in Europe and changing the target market means changing our economy.

Service sector trade with thr eu is declining though

 

[Burnsy2023]

Service sector trade with the eu is declining though

Regardless, it's still the backbone of our economy. Three quarters of what we do is services.

 

[Tunney]

Leave.EU: "The EU is democratic. We must leave it!"
*Leave.EU threatens legal action over the voter registration deadline*

 

[Captain]

Leave.EU: "The EU is democratic. We must leave it!"
*Leave.EU threatens legal action over the voter registration deadline*

Thats fair enough, it was a deadline for a reason, to be able to just extend it is wrong.

 

[Tunney]

Thats fair enough, it was a deadline for a reason, to be able to just extend it is wrong.

It wasn't extended arbitrarily. There were problems that stopped people being able to register.

 

[scorza]

Tony Blair praises Cameron on referendum campaign performance so far, cries about some other things.

 

[PapaLazaru]

Cameron's totally disgusting performance last night, as he traitorously attempts to destroy the country, will be enough to drive many people to vote 'LEAVE'.

Well, let's review this in a few years if we vote to leave, when everything has gone to ****.

It is going to be a damn shame and an embarrassing time of this country for future generations.

Boris does not even want us to leave in reality, you do know that right? Boris as PM? Give me a break, he is the traitor here.

 

[Darujhistan]

You can bet diamonds that if the young voters were largely understood to be leavers then it would have been tough **** baby about late registration and website crashes.

Pretty typical behaviour from the increasingly desperate establishment gang bangers.

Well f you all.

OUT.

 

[Darujhistan]

What was the reason? Or was it basically an aribtrary deadline? Presumably you're aware of the fact it had problems last night, when thousands and thousands were trying to register, with many being unable to... yeah? In light of that, is this really unreasonable?!

How long have they had to register, the last 24 hours, or the last 6 months?

It's a fix by the Establishment, if young voters were thought to be outers there would have been no concerns from Cameron et al.

 

[davewhite04]

The issue is how "informed" that "informed" opinion is. That would be from bodies like the IFS, with a fair bit of EU funding, and the IMF which, first, is led by the former French finance minister, and second, was so accurate about UK "austerity" plans and the devastating impact it would have on the UK economy that it had to apologise for being so utterly wrong.

These "informed" opinions are, in fact, just relying on numbers pumped out by econometric models which in turn are built on assumptions of the nature, and magnitude, of effects. Where these are assumptions based on a significant body of time-series data and times are normal, those assumptions have been tested, and are fairly accurate, by which I mean, have a decent prospect of being broadly right.

But we saw, post-2007/08 crash just how accurate those models are when times aren't normal, and that IMF apology over austerity measures underlined the point, and highlighted it in neon.

Brexit, if it happens, is utterly unprecedented, and none, none at all, of those models have historical data on which to test their assumptions of the hugely complex set of impacts of their models.

Those opinions, at least on the impact of Brexit, are not "informed" at all. They are relying on credibility, such as it is after being spectacularly wrong in the past, to give the imprimateur of supposedly "informed" opinion onto what boils down to a set of theoretical guesses of effects refined into formula and stuck in a damn great spreadsheet.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. Make those assumptions about the impact in a pessimistic way, and lo and behold, the models give pessimistic results. Make them optimistically and we get optimistic results. They're models, based on assumptions, based on theory and guesswork because nobody, including those "informed opinions" has any historical basis for a complex and unprecedented situation.

Before you rely too much on "informed opinion" just because they're supposedly renowned economic bodies, I would point out that two of the greastest theoretical economists in history, Keynes and Friedman, fundamentally disagreed even on basic principles never mind fine-tuning assumptions. Bung a more modern economist, like Leijonhufvud (under whom I studied briefly in the 70s, and who is about the one thing Yanis Varoufakis have in common, in terms of being influenced by) and it's like putting out a forest fire with dynamite - you can't predict the exact effect but you can expect a big bang.

Don't be too impressed by "informed" economists.

I also heard that all "leading" economists that the IN brigade constantly refer to, amount to about 100 out of about 4000 who wisely have not commented.