Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not only that, but the SE of England is not England, but just where the wealth is concentrated. Look at where the Tories won seats in the last election (on 36% of the popular vote).

The Tories won seats all over England, to be fair. The Labour/Tory divide tends to be Urban/Rural in nature:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/2015UKElectionMap.svg

Sam Russell

djpbarry wrote: »

The Tories won seats all over England, to be fair. The Labour/Tory divide tends to be Urban/Rural in nature:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/2015UKElectionMap.svg

A rather depressing map. Large areas = low population = rural, small area= high population = urban. Wealthy = Tory, Poor = Labour. Scotland = SNP.

Jimoslimos

Received the voting guide booklet yesterday. There was a page dedicated to each of the respective campaign groups (StrongerIn and VoteLeave).

I noted that StrongerIn had sources quoted for many of their claims, whereas there were none for VoteLeave.

Much of both sides arguments were vague, but VoteLeave were the worst.

We will retake our seats on international bodies. We will have more international influence and use it to encourage more friendly international cooperation.

Lemming

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I noted that StrongerIn had sources quoted for many of their claims, whereas there were none for VoteLeave.

Are you in any way surprised?

I've had a few leaflets (including the official government one) through the door over the last coupe of months, and I can honestly say that the leave ones have had the look and information "quality" of an EDL or BNP flyer (I've had the odious pleasure of receiving a couple of those over the years through the door around election times when I lived in Rotherham). High on gloss, low on substance. Typically summed up as "OUT!!OUT!!OUT!! with little else as if it's a local derby football match they're preparing for.

To be fair about it, I've had one of the stay campaign flyers that was equally deserving of rolling the eyes, but by and large the stay campaign pamphlets been consistent in using facts over emotive flag waving and stoking fears of Johnny Foreigner.

A Primal Nut

micosoft wrote: »

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The EU is becoming too much of a nanny state. Take the recent regulations on E-Cigarettes - I don't smoke and never have but it's pointless legislation - the politicians thinking they know best for the small people - there is no reason this can't be something individual countries can deal with themselves.

So you think that there should be no regulation at all of a chemical substance being inhaled into somebodies lungs? I'm not sure how you find the pointless tbh - the World Health Organisation asked for regulation. You also think it's more sensible for 27 countries to individually bring in legislation on e-cigarettes than just one set covering the whole EU? This is nothing to do with a (Daily Mail trope) Nanny State but a basic function of a free trade area (what the EU was originally setup to do according to some Brexiters). The US have brought in similar legislation for the whole US and not state by state.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

And who's actually making these decisions? Once our MEP's are elected we never hear anything. What's Mairead McGuinness' opinion on the regulation of e-cigarettes for example? No idea. Ironically the only MEPs we ever hear from are the ones are you against the EU such as Ming Flanagan. The rest of them disappear into a black hole of big salaries, expenses and zero accountability.

Have you asked? Did you bother google it? Do you think Mairead should write to you personally on this topic?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I don't know why people working in Britain are worried about their jobs - the likes of Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU and trade just fine with other European countries.

I would like to think the referendum would be a wake-up call for the EU that reform is badly needed to make it more democratic. At least the consensus that Europe is always right is being broken up by this.

Well the terms of Norway and Switzerlands relationship are very well known. They comply with the rules, pay in and don't get any say. This is not what the Brexit campaign claim they will get.

But it would be useful if you suggest how the EU could be more democratic since you don't seem too interested in using your ability to contact your MEP for a simple matter as above. How do you think the EU could be made "more democratic"?

Well to give more details about what I mean. When the smoking ban was brought in here there was plenty of debate on both sides; there was plenty of media coverage and people up and down the country were talking about it. When the E-Cigarette law was introduced, you basically just read about it in the paper one day. I don't smoke so I don't have strong opinions about it one way or the other, but I know plenty of people who smoke who did't know about this regulation until I asked them about it. If the Irish government passed a law like this it would be a big talking point. I wouldn't need to write a letter to my local TD because it would be pretty obvious where he and his party stand.

Imagine a US-style system where most citizens can't name the president or know how he is elected. Imagine a US-style system where congress pass laws which receive very little media coverage and the blame is placed exclusively on state governments who try to comply with these laws.

Look at Irish water. It almost brought down a government and destroyed a major party. Yet all they were doing was rubber stamping a law introduced by the EU. Yet what consequences are there for the EU politicians who were the real brains behind the operation? None. Not one of them lost a single second of sleep.

By the time it comes to national parliament and the real debate starts, we're already told it's too late to change our minds lest we be fined by the EU. How many anti-Irish water protests took place in Brussels?

There is a disconnect between local citizens and the EU; whether it's caused by the media or apathy or what I don't know but the reality is it exists. Like I said ask anyone to name senior EU politicians and they would struggle, yet these politicians, at least in some areas, have increasingly more impact on our day-to-day lives than Enda Kenny. It's not just in Ireland either, every EU country is the same in this regard.

As far as I see it we have two choices. Either we go for a US federal style system where all of Europe elect a president and there is no more need for national parliament rubber stamping. Everyone understands who the people actually passing the laws are and who should be held accountable when things go wrong.

Or alternatively we pull back drastically on powers available to the EU, perhaps allowing national veto's.

What I don't like is the current situation where the EU passes all the laws with virtually no debate and lets the national parliaments deal with the consequences, protests and electoral implications.

Scofflaw

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Look at Irish water. It almost brought down a government and destroyed a major party. Yet all they were doing was rubber stamping a law introduced by the EU. Yet what consequences are there for the EU politicians who were the real brains behind the operation? None. Not one of them lost a single second of sleep.

By the time it comes to national parliament and the real debate starts, we're already told it's too late to change our minds lest we be fined by the EU. How many anti-Irish water protests took place in Brussels?

Well, a couple of points about that. First, that there shouldn't really be any consequences for the "EU politicians" because (a) the idea of charging for water isn't contentious in most of Europe, (b) because they had nothing to do with Irish Water itself - and for a lot of people it's not about the idea of charging for water, but about the inept way it was handled, and finally (c) because the sensitivity to such things in Ireland was recognised in a specific Irish opt-out clause.

There is a disconnect between local citizens and the EU; whether it's caused by the media or apathy or what I don't know but the reality is it exists.

Undeniably so. At least in part it's a failure of media - the pointless blathering of a whipped Dáil that will inevitably produce the result the government wants is given many multiples of the coverage given to the unwhipped EP or the legislative process that leads up to it. And the coverage of Irish government decisions in Europe is equally poor - and it's not as if the information isn't available.

Partly I wonder if it isn't the case that we're unused to the idea of a real legislative process - what we have is a legislature which primarily just rubber-stamps legislation arising inscrutably from the opacity of the Cabinet, and we assume other legislative processes are equally pointless to pay attention to.

Like I said ask anyone to name senior EU politicians and they would struggle, yet these politicians, at least in some areas, have increasingly more impact on our day-to-day lives than Enda Kenny. It's not just in Ireland either, every EU country is the same in this regard.

As far as I see it we have two choices. Either we go for a US federal style system where all of Europe elect a president and there is no more need for national parliament rubber stamping. Everyone understands who the people actually passing the laws are and who should be held accountable when things go wrong.

Or alternatively we pull back drastically on powers available to the EU, perhaps allowing national veto's.

What I don't like is the current situation where the EU passes all the laws with virtually no debate and lets the national parliaments deal with the consequences, protests and electoral implications.

Or we incrementally improve what's there, which admittedly lacks the drama of your alternatives, but avoids throwing either baby out with the bathwater.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Like I said ask anyone to name senior EU politicians and they would struggle, yet these politicians, at least in some areas, have increasingly more impact on our day-to-day lives than Enda Kenny.

Enda Kenny is not a "senior EU politician"?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

What I don't like is the current situation where the EU passes all the laws with virtually no debate...

A wonderful synopsis of how the EU does not operate.

micosoft

Well to give more details about what I mean. When the smoking ban was brought in here there was plenty of debate on both sides; there was plenty of media coverage and people up and down the country were talking about it. When the E-Cigarette law was introduced, you basically just read about it in the paper one day. I don't smoke so I don't have strong opinions about it one way or the other, but I know plenty of people who smoke who did't know about this regulation until I asked them about it. If the Irish government passed a law like this it would be a big talking point. I wouldn't need to write a letter to my local TD because it would be pretty obvious where he and his party stand.

Not even remotely similar scenarios between banning smoking inside premises and regulating the contents of a chemical that is inhaled into your lungs. Regulations are brought in every month without comment at a national and EU level. We regulate medicine. We regulate food. We regulate drink. Because it's patently obvious there is nothing controversial to most people about the idea of regulating something with health implications. It simply wouldn't be a talking point here.

Imagine a US-style system where most citizens can't name the president or know how he is elected. Imagine a US-style system where congress pass laws which receive very little media coverage and the blame is placed exclusively on state governments who try to comply with these laws.

Many Americans aren't aware of how the president is elected - you realise you don't directly vote for the US president right? The US has had over 200 years to bed down their system. Congress passes laws weekly with little or no comment. Plenty of states do the same thing - trying to roll back clean air laws, abortion etc. The federal government rams it through if they have to far more forceably than the EU does as we see with South Carolina now.

Look at Irish water. It almost brought down a government and destroyed a major party. Yet all they were doing was rubber stamping a law introduced by the EU. Yet what consequences are there for the EU politicians who were the real brains behind the operation? None. Not one of them lost a single second of sleep.

Why would they? They were all astonished that the most obvious thing in the world - that you charge for water would be slightly contentious. Why should there be a consequence for them?

By the time it comes to national parliament and the real debate starts, we're already told it's too late to change our minds lest we be fined by the EU. How many anti-Irish water protests took place in Brussels?

Like equal pay for Woman it's to our national shame we have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the EU from time to time. That we have to be told to protect our environment by outsiders says a lot about our electorate.

There is a disconnect between local citizens and the EU; whether it's caused by the media or apathy or what I don't know but the reality is it exists. Like I said ask anyone to name senior EU politicians and they would struggle, yet these politicians, at least in some areas, have increasingly more impact on our day-to-day lives than Enda Kenny. It's not just in Ireland either, every EU country is the same in this regard.

And Barack Obama and Li Keqiang probably have enormous impact on our day to day lives too. We have no say on them. This mythology that there is such a thing as an "independent" state that only exists (if even) in North Korea.

As far as I see it we have two choices. Either we go for a US federal style system where all of Europe elect a president and there is no more need for national parliament rubber stamping. Everyone understands who the people actually passing the laws are and who should be held accountable when things go wrong.

If you can only see two choices you should broaden your mind. There are many choices and its not a simplistic binary choice that you have framed.

Or alternatively we pull back drastically on powers available to the EU, perhaps allowing national veto's.

Which would make the 27 member EU unworkable.

What I don't like is the current situation where the EU passes all the laws with virtually no debate and lets the national parliaments deal with the consequences, protests and electoral implications.

Utterly untrue. The EU has many mechanisms to account to it's citizens. Make an effort to inform yourself by reading newspapers and the various EU websites.

micosoft

dupe

BlitzKrieg

Utterly untrue. The EU has many mechanisms to account to it's citizens. Make an effort to inform yourself by reading newspapers and the various EU websites.

I'm sorry but after this campaign.

No

The media is god awful at covering the EU.

Even simple things like todays big sh*tstorm over turkey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36353013


This is not a topic of discussion.

This is a flat out

No


What you are describing is impossible

Here are numerous links to previous examples of how this is done, what you are saying is clearly wrong and you are blatantly fear mongering.



For those who might for a second think that turkey is going to become an EU memberstate because some groups want them in...


IT HAS NEVER WORKED LIKE THAT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Accession_2011

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Accession_2005

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Accession_2003

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Accession_1994


Whenever a country is considered ready to join the EU a treaty needs to be approved by *EVERY MEMBER STATE*



So I'm looking at the BBC and wondering.


Why havnt they said that

Why havnt they put in one of their referendum fact check boxes and state: This is impossible liar liar pants on fire to the leave campaigners.



Oh because the news media has become a f*cking shambles and incapable of reporting anything on the EU so opting instead for he said, she said articles.

BlitzKrieg

BBC finally put the rumour to bed with a legal expert. It shouldnt take the BBC 8 hours to find someone who can check basic legal documents to finally put that claim to bed.


Christ almighty...

Lemming

TBH Blitz, your last two posts have summed up my absolute bafflement with the EU referendum. The Leave campaign have come out with some blatant b0lloxology that would be trivial to counteract, and rarely has anybody thought to simply pull the rug from under their feet. I mean, what exactly are all those highly paid government advisors and spin agents for? How about journalists actually applying some objective aim-for-the-juggular reporting and asking awkward questions? If I can spot such pedestrian bullsh*t and my 9-5 is not political life, I'm sure to the heavens above that any of the aforementioned people can :-/

It's like every political & journalistic entity in the UK loses any sembelance of common sense as soon as someone mentions "EU".

On an unrelated note, voting cards came through the door yesterday.

oscarBravo

The problem is that campaigners everywhere are learning the Trump lesson: lie, lie assertively, lie constantly, and if anyone contradicts you, contradict them straight back.

There's almost no point in fact-checking "leave" assertions, because fewer and fewer people care whether or not what they're being told is true; all they care is whether it agrees with what they already believe. If it does, it's true. If it doesn't, it's false. There is no objective truth; every opinion has equal validity.

Watching "Have I Got News For You", there was a clip of Boris Johnson being called on the blatant falsehood of how much the UK contributes to the EU. He flatly contradicted the correction, and just kept doing so with a smile on his face. You can be confident that those who have already concluded that the figure of £350 million a week is true were impressed.

micosoft

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem is that campaigners everywhere are learning the Trump lesson: lie, lie assertively, lie constantly, and if anyone contradicts you, contradict them straight back.

To be fair (and Johnson brought it all up first) this was first articulated by Goebbels and his "repeat a lie enough times". Perhaps if we are comparing people ;-)

The question is why are there no consequences to telling blatant falsehoods. Freedom of speech is now taken to mean freedom to lie. Facts are now opinions.

My own thought is that this has gotten worse with the introduction of social media. Papers are afraid that the traditional media response to those that told lies - ignoring them, either means they are bypassed or they look like they are covering up. So they continue to report on what are clearly untrue statements. As a result a lot of people who would have been ignored in the past as loons are now reported on.

chasm

Would someone here be able to clarify something for me please?
I have been following the Brexit discussions here and elsewhere and came across this earlier regarding the UK's trade options if their vote to leave and it seems to contradict what i have read in numerous articles elsewhere, regarding the free movement of persons:

"The revised EFTA convention (the Vaduz Convention) extends beyond free trade in goods, and includes provisions on free trade in services and the free movement of capital and of persons. None of these should be problematical to the UK given that the Vaduz Convention only applies between its members and so would not act as a gateway for the free movement of persons from the r-EU or elsewhere. All four EFTA states have standards of living comparable to or even higher than the UK so do not present any mass migration risk."
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-trade-treaties.shtml


"A citizen of an EFTA country can live and work in all other EFTA countries and in all EU countries, and a citizen of an EU country can live and work in all EFTA countries (but for voting and working in sensitive fields, such as government / police / military, citizenship is often required, and non-citizens may not have the same rights to welfare and unemployment benefits as citizens)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association

Scofflaw

chasm wrote: »

Would someone here be able to clarify something for me please?
I have been following the Brexit discussions here and elsewhere and came across this earlier regarding the UK's trade options if their vote to leave and it seems to contradict what i have read in numerous articles elsewhere, regarding the free movement of persons:

"The revised EFTA convention (the Vaduz Convention) extends beyond free trade in goods, and includes provisions on free trade in services and the free movement of capital and of persons. None of these should be problematical to the UK given that the Vaduz Convention only applies between its members and so would not act as a gateway for the free movement of persons from the r-EU or elsewhere. All four EFTA states have standards of living comparable to or even higher than the UK so do not present any mass migration risk."
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-trade-treaties.shtml


"A citizen of an EFTA country can live and work in all other EFTA countries and in all EU countries, and a citizen of an EU country can live and work in all EFTA countries (but for voting and working in sensitive fields, such as government / police / military, citizenship is often required, and non-citizens may not have the same rights to welfare and unemployment benefits as citizens)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association

The problem is that the of the four countries concerned (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland) the first three are EEA/EFTA, and only Switzerland is EFTA only. The EEA treaty includes free movement with the EU, so EEA membership automatically involves that.

Free movement for Switzerland, on the other hand, is provided by the EU-Switzerland bilateral agreements, not by the EFTA agreement.

So Wikipedia is technically correct, that there's free movement between all the EFTA states and the EU - and the lawyers are also correct, because that free movement is not something that joining EFTA entails, but has been negotiated separately by the only non-EEA EFTA state.

However, the likelihood of getting an EFTA deal - which is not the same as Single Market access - are slim to none. The other EU countries have made it clear that individually crafted bilateral deals are not somewhere they want to go, or even stay:

The EU has made clear that it wants to move on from just negotiating individual treaties. In July 2010, European Council President Herman van Rompuy warned Switzerland that it must take up the EU's legal framework – the acquis communautaire – if it wants to access the market.

That looks to me like it will be the very strong preferred position - that access to the EU market is conditional on accepting the acquis, which includes free movement. The UK's importance as a market to the rest of the EU is often brought out as a reason why this won't apply to the UK, but Switzerland is the EU's #3 market after the USA and China, which is the position that the UK would occupy in the event of Brexit, so I have my doubts about that.

What might well happen in the event of Brexit is that the current moves towards a "cooperation agreement" with Switzerland (a sort of mini-EEA containing only Switzerland) would be broadened to include the UK, so that relations between the EU and both countries would be governed by the same agreement.

Either way, I suspect that adoption of the acquis, including free movement, will be a non-negotiable part of the deal. The EU showed this, I think, when the recent Swiss referendum result breached the bilateral agreements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

chasm

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem is that the of the four countries concerned (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland) the first three are EEA/EFTA, and only Switzerland is EFTA only. The EEA treaty includes free movement with the EU, so EEA membership automatically involves that.

Free movement for Switzerland, on the other hand, is provided by the EU-Switzerland bilateral agreements, not by the EFTA agreement.

So Wikipedia is technically correct, that there's free movement between all the EFTA states and the EU - and the lawyers are also correct, because that free movement is not something that joining EFTA entails, but has been negotiated separately by the only non-EEA EFTA state.

However, the likelihood of getting an EFTA deal - which is not the same as Single Market access - are slim to none. The other EU countries have made it clear that individually crafted bilateral deals are not somewhere they want to go, or even stay:



That looks to me like it will be the very strong preferred position - that access to the EU market is conditional on accepting the acquis, which includes free movement. The UK's importance as a market to the rest of the EU is often brought out as a reason why this won't apply to the UK, but Switzerland is the EU's #3 market after the USA and China, which is the position that the UK would occupy in the event of Brexit, so I have my doubts about that.

What might well happen in the event of Brexit is that the current moves towards a "cooperation agreement" with Switzerland (a sort of mini-EEA containing only Switzerland) would be broadened to include the UK, so that relations between the EU and both countries would be governed by the same agreement.

Either way, I suspect that adoption of the acquis, including free movement, will be a non-negotiable part of the deal. The EU showed this, I think, when the recent Swiss referendum result breached the bilateral agreements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw, that makes sense now!

BlitzKrieg

Hey could Scofflaw or perhaps someone else perhaps shed some light into this thought.

I was discussing with someone about eu funding in the uk and there position was that it would always be better in uk control. I naturally pointed out it predominantly is left to the national government how funding is spent but the funding that goes to education etc got brought up and a thought has entered my mind.

Has the EU ever cut funding to something they agreed to fund?

I ask because one of the flaws of wanting the government to do it is when it comes around to the budget the government and local councils are more then willing to cut back on funding of thibgs they initially agreed to fund. But I couldn't think of a similar example in the EU.

I know CAP fluctuates depending on market but the EU as far as I can tell has never decided halfway through the peace process to cut funding to the peace program or to any infastructure or education grant.

Or is it just a matter of it not getting reported in the news?

Scofflaw

Well, the EU sets a five year multi-annual framework every five to seven years, then the annual budget is set once annually by the Commission and the Parliament. The idea is to commit to long-term spending, and not to make sudden changes, and generally once the EU has committed to a program, it's in the nature of a legal commitment rather than a political one.

So something major like the Peace programme is only going to get removed at the MAFF stage, and individual projects or programmes under it only at the annual budget.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LuckyLloyd

As always, the gradual erosion of traditional media's ability to accurately and objectively report the news (ever more media produced by ever less journalists) is brutally highlighted on a topic like this where the stakes are high and one side of the argument is more heavily weighted towards emotional appeals or scare mongering. The problem is that new social media can never replace the essential societal function that is supposed to be performed by the fourth estate and that is because people gravitate towards bunkers that back up their beliefs and eschew anything that challenges their perceptions.

For sure, one can be overly sentimental or misty eyed about the past and if you possess a critical and open mindset the quicker and more free dissemination of information is a gift. But we lost something with the loss of monopolistic news sources like well funded national broadcasters with a captive audience. If this referendum was twenty year's ago a very significant percentage of undecided voters would make their mind up the week before the vote after tuning into a key debate program chaired by an active fact wielding moderator like Dimbleby or the likes. And there would be a low hum of factual debunks of planks of the leave campaign in the weeks leading up to that point.

The reality is that the old landscape is never coming back and its unclear what can be done given the barren financial outlook that traditional media faces. It would be a shame if events like Brexit or a Trump Presidency had to happen for people to see the problem that has stared them in the face for some time.

BlitzKrieg

Most people here have no interest in the tory civil war that is the remain vs leave campaign. Frankly we've made it clear enough times there is much more for staying in the EU then for leaving and that most of what the leave campaign say is bs wrapped in a shiny wrapper of nostalgia

ancapailldorcha

Posts by rereg troll deleted.

LordSutch

If I were on the remain side, I would be worried (wth less than a month to go before the referendum) that the 'Remain' argument is not getting enough daylight between itself and the Brexit campaign!

Cameron & Co should be winning all the polls by a much bigger margin!!!

At this point in the campaign, it looks like its too close to call..

djpbarry

LordSutch wrote: »

If I were on the remain side, I would be worried (wth less than a month to go before the referendum) that the 'Remain' argument is not getting enough daylight between itself and the Brexit campaign!

I'm not sure what you mean - the arguments from the two sides are literally polar opposites of each other?

LordSutch wrote: »

Cameron & Co should be winning all the polls by a much bigger margin!!!

That assumes the polls are reliable, which they certainly were not for the general election.

LordSutch wrote: »

At this point in the campaign, it looks like its too close to call..

Again, that depends on what you're prepared to take as a reliable indicator. For example, online polls show a very tight race, but telephone polls consistently predict a pretty comfortable win for Remain. Different people will give different reasons for this discrepancy, but in my opinion, it’s difficult to obtain a completely random sample in an online poll, whereas this is easily achieved with telephone polling.

Another indicator is the odds offered by bookies, pretty much all of whom have been consistently offering short odds on a Remain win:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/brexit-odds-live-updates-on-percentage-chance-of-uk-leaving-the-eu

At this point in time, a narrow win for Remain looks the most likely outcome.

whatstherush

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean - the arguments from the two sides are literally polar opposites of each other?
That assumes the polls are reliable, which they certainly were not for the general election.
Again, that depends on what you're prepared to take as a reliable indicator. For example, online polls show a very tight race, but telephone polls consistently predict a pretty comfortable win for Remain. Different people will give different reasons for this discrepancy, but in my opinion, it’s difficult to obtain a completely random sample in an online poll, whereas this is easily achieved with telephone polling.

Another indicator is the odds offered by bookies, pretty much all of whom have been consistently offering short odds on a Remain win:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/brexit-odds-live-updates-on-percentage-chance-of-uk-leaving-the-eu

At this point in time, a narrow win for Remain looks the most likely outcome.

The latest guardian poll(conducted over last weekend), which does both online and phone, showed something like a 7% swing from remain to leave on the phone poll. Both polls now have majority for leave, while up to this the phone poll has always been remain by a few points.

If another phone poll follows suit might be time to go down to the bookies for a leave.

djpbarry

whatstherush wrote: »

The latest guardian poll(conducted over last weekend), which does both online and phone, showed something like a 7% swing from remain to leave on the phone poll. Both polls now have majority for leave, while up to this the phone poll has always been remain by a few points.

I assume you're referring to the latest ICM polls? I don't think I'll be reading too much into the result of a single poll result.

BlitzKrieg

Well its no surprise for me. Cameron has let Boris Johnson turn this into a tory civil war which has pushed all the other parties out except for ukip on top of which the tories have done a god awful job of the campaign (ever notice that this seems to be a theme with incumbent parties and EU referendums) and the media have not done anything close to actual journalism, they report statements regardless of how outlandish they are and let them sit on the news tracker for hours to days and then finally put one of those little factcheck boxes saying X statement was BS (and this is for both sides).

A good example of that is that the media ran with the proposed *australian system* for most of yesterday, it wasnt until late in the evening that someone finally pointed out that the UK already uses the australian system on non-EU immigrants and there are still more of them entering the UK then EU citizens.

daheff

And congratulations to Frau Merkel for winning the referendum for the 'Leave' campaign


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-02/merkel-warns-u-k-of-isolation-if-brexit-camp-wins-on-june-23


If there's one thing a Brit doesn't like, its the Germans telling them what to do.

BlitzKrieg

daheff wrote: »

And congratulations to Frau Merkel for winning the referendum for the 'Leave' campaign


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-02/merkel-warns-u-k-of-isolation-if-brexit-camp-wins-on-june-23


If there's one thing a Brit doesn't like, its the Germans telling them what to do.

Or congratulations to how the media reports it

The BBC makes it a lot softer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726

djpbarry

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

...the media have not done anything close to actual journalism, they report statements regardless of how outlandish they are and let them sit on the news tracker for hours to days and then finally put one of those little factcheck boxes saying X statement was BS (and this is for both sides).

There's a decent documentary by Laura Kuenssberg on iPlayer at the moment where she challenges assertions made by both sides:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07dpt29/britain-and-europe-for-richer-or-poorer

I say "decent" because in my opinion, she doesn't go far enough, particularly in her questioning of Leave campaigners.