Brexit discussion thread IV

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

I would honestly read little into those polls. By and large the pro remain group are the young and the working middle class. The working middle class generally don't answer the phone anymore to an unrecognised number due to the plague of cold calling, and avoid on street pollsters like the plague. They also rarely answer the phone at all in the evening. I am certain there is such a large population bias that these polls are meaningless.

No. Pollsters have thought of this. The know the age/gender/social class/etc structure of the population from the census and other reliable sources. So if their interview method means that (say) young single adults are over-represented among their respondents relative to the share of the population that they represent, while (say) older married couples are underrepresented, they re-weight the views of these two groups to reflect the proportion of the population that they represent. They do this systematically; it's a well-understood and well-developed process. Provided your population of respondents is large enough, you can make this correction with a high degree of accuracy.

20silkcut

Inquitus wrote: »

This is because a large swathe of the press is not reporting the truth, if you only read the Telegraph, Mail and/or Express, you'd think Brexit was wonderful too!

If that was the case and there is such a silent majority dont you think some sort of political movement or politician would have emerged to represent those voices.
But there is nothing.
If there was an appetite for such a movement it is perhaps the biggest open goal in history. But it obviously does not exist.

The only dissenting voices are the totally discredited Tony Blair and yesterdays man John major. And maybe the blokes in the pub or James o brien on LBC. And a few disparate commentators here and there. Outside of that almost nothing.

Rhineshark

20silkcut wrote: »

If that was the case and there is such a silent majority dont you think some sort of political movement or politician would have emerged to represent those voices.
But there is nothing.
If there was an appetite for such a movement it is perhaps the biggest open goal in history. But it obviously does not exist.

The only dissenting voices are the totally discredited Tony Blair and yesterdays man John major. And maybe the blokes in the pub or James o brien on LBC. And a few disparate commentators here and there. Outside of that almost nothing.

And approximately half the population who are mostly ignored, even when protesting.

It is a massive own goal.

Dymo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Including my wifes aunty who moved from Dublin to SE England 40 years ago... she think Johnston is brilliant. She likes Farage as well so she is plainly a nutter

I can fully understand, I have a uncle in similar circumstances. He really likes what comes out of Farage's mouth and thinks Boris is a true patriot.

The majority of people in the UK haven't a clue what brexit is about and it's not until Joe Public feels some pain that their opinion will change.

At the moment all they hear and see is headlines from the Telegraph and Express and it's Theresa May telling europe where to go.

AlmightyCushion

Roger_007 wrote: »

A general erection would be interesting, I assume it will shown be on the porn channels.

I'd look forward to seeing the exit polls. They could be hard to swallow though.

Enzokk

trellheim wrote: »

Arlene on Twitter being asked if no gb/ni border meant abortion as well

Funny that they are quick to mention that there is a border already between NI and Ireland, currency and tax etc., but is very quick to not mention that there is a legal border as well between NI and GB. If it is easy to put up a border between Ireland and NI the same goes the other way, surely?

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Pollsters have thought of this. The know the age/gender/social class/etc structure of the population from the census and other reliable sources. So if their interview method means that (say) young single adults are over-represented among their respondents relative to the share of the population that they represent, while (say) older married couples are underrepresented, they re-weight the views of these two groups to reflect the proportion of the population that they represent. They do this systematically; it's a well-understood and well-developed process. Provided your population of respondents is large enough, you can make this correction with a high degree of accuracy.

The one area where they are not sure what would happen in with turnout. If the youth vote has a higher turnout it skews the polls I believe. That is why all the polls right up to the last election had the Tories leading handsomely, or at least just leading comfortably in the end, but the YouGov poll thought more younger voters would turn out and had a closer result than the others.

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

Funny that they are quick to mention that there is a border already between NI and Ireland, currency and tax etc., but is very quick to not mention that there is a legal border as well between NI and GB. If it is easy to put up a border between Ireland and NI the same goes the other way, surely?

Another interesting difference between NI and GB law is the handgun ban that came in after Dunblane. NI did not have to implement that ban and handguns continue to be licensable there.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

I would honestly read little into those polls. By and large the pro remain group are the young and the working middle class. The working middle class generally don't answer the phone anymore to an unrecognised number due to the plague of cold calling, and avoid on street pollsters like the plague. They also rarely answer the phone at all in the evening. I am certain there is such a large population bias that these polls are meaningless.

No. Pollsters have thought of this. The know the age/gender/social class/etc structure of the population from the census and other reliable sources. So if their interview method means that (say) young single adults are over-represented among their respondents relative to the share of the population that they represent, while (say) older married couples are underrepresented, they re-weight the views of these two groups to reflect the proportion of the population that they represent. They do this systematically; it's a well-understood and well-developed process. Provided your population of respondents is large enough, you can make this correction with a high degree of accuracy.

Their populations are not big enough. The power of these tests is simply insufficient. You say that they weigh these tests accordingly, and skew the results, but that is simply soft science badly applied. It doesn't work. One also has to take observer bias into account, as well as potential minimum wage phone pollsters high tendency to fill in the gaps.
A sample of a few hundred or thousand is inadequate, even if not biased (which they inevitably are)

J Mysterio

trellheim wrote: »

Arlene on Twitter being asked if no gb/ni border meant abortion as well

Honestly though, the double standards are ridiculous.

breatheme

trellheim wrote: »

Arlene on Twitter being asked if no gb/ni border meant abortion as well

Someone should ask her about gay marriage as well.

gooch2k9

breatheme wrote: »

Someone should ask her about gay marriage as well.

Some lad called Owen Jones did. Usual platitudes of "we're not stopping anyone loving each other".

J Mysterio

Also, she is not representing the people of NI in this, Stormont is shut. Why does she get to say that a phyiscal border between Ireland and NI is ok but a customs border in the sea is not?

Harika

flatty wrote: »

Their populations are not big enough. The power of these tests is simply insufficient. You say that they weigh these tests accordingly, and skew the results, but that is simply soft science badly applied. It doesn't work. One also has to take observer bias into account, as well as potential minimum wage phone pollsters high tendency to fill in the gaps.
A sample of a few hundred or thousand is inadequate, even if not biased (which they inevitably are)

The pollsters are good, the journalists are just lacking the knowledge to read the results and interpret them correctly.
Example: hillary was given the day before the elections a 66% chance of winning, so the press said she got it. But a 66% chance only means a 2 in 3 chance to win what is not far away from a toin toss with 50%
Another one,
No Brexit was leading the way with 52% to 48% for leave with a 5% uncertainty. Press said, we will stay for sure. Taking the uncertainty in account this was never given. That leave was winning was always in the data and a real possibility.
Forecasts and polls are forecasts and polls if they were 100% we would not need elections.

Leroy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

Also, she is not representing the people of NI in this, Stormont is shut. Why does she get to say that a phyiscal border between Ireland and NI is ok but a customs border in the sea is not?

Because May gave her that power.

J Mysterio

Comments from Arlene:

“There cannot be a border down the Irish Sea, a differential between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK,” Ms Foster told the BBC on Tuesday. The interview was aired on Wednesday.

“The red line is blood red,” she said.

Way to take the rhetoric down a notch. 'Blood red' - nice.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/dup-leader-arlene-foster-our-red-line-is-blood-red-1.3650080

Enzokk

Theresa May doing her speech at the Conservative Conference now. From initial hearing it is high in rhetoric and low in specifics. Seems the highlights are:

Anybody from anywhere can be something in the UK, like Sajid Javid becoming Home Secretary and his father being a immigrant from Pakistan. But her new policies will not allow him in the country.

Also it seems it will be a hard Brexit, but one where there will be no borders at all. JIT manufacturing will continue, but free movement of people will end.

She also slammed the political discourse as being vile at the moment. People shouting at the children of politicians. Or how Dianne Abbott is suffering untold abuse, yet you have advertisements touting people to vote Tory as the alternative is Dianne Abbott as Home Secretary.

Her speech is waffle and unicorns. They are an outward looking country, but they need to start seeing the world out there?

Akrasia

May's policies will let still let plenty of Pakistani immigrants in, just not as many French, German, Spanish, Italian etc

To compensate from a reduction in immigration from Europe, they'll have to allow additional visas to immigrants from outside of Europe.

In other words, in the name of protecting 'British jobs' and 'British wages' and 'British culture', they're swapping immigrant labour from high income, high education, mostly christian or secular neighbouring countries, with immigrant labour from low income, theocratic countries half way across the world.

lawred2

J Mysterio wrote: »

Comments from Arlene:

“There cannot be a border down the Irish Sea, a differential between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK,” Ms Foster told the BBC on Tuesday. The interview was aired on Wednesday.

“The red line is blood red,” she said.

Way to take the rhetoric down a notch. 'Blood red' - nice.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/dup-leader-arlene-foster-our-red-line-is-blood-red-1.3650080

Imagine being so hateful or believing/knowing that such hateful angry rhetoric is what those around you want to hear..

Where are we going with all this only back to the seventies..

swampgas

From the Guardian's updates just now:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/oct/03/tory-conference-may-announces-fuel-duty-freeze-despite-treasury-concerns-about-800m-cost-politics-live

She says no deal would be tough. There would be tariffs imposed.

It would be difficult at first, although eventually the UK would prosper, she says.

She says they need to send a clear message: the two choices offered by the EU (Norway or Canada) are unacceptable.

As someone else described earlier, she can see that No Deal Brexit gets her out of the impossible situation she has engineered for herself. It doesn't matter if the country is destroyed as long as she can avoid having to lose face to a bunch of foreigners.

UsedToWait

Enzokk wrote: »

Theresa May doing her speech at the Conservative Conference now. From initial hearing it is high in rhetoric and low in specifics.

Well, I suppose that's progress from last year, which was high in phlegm and low in set design..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/oct/04/great-expectorations-theresa-may-battles-conference-coughing-fit-video

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/oct/04/tory-conference-letter-f-falls-off-slogan-behind-theresa-may-video

J Mysterio

May declares 'austerity is over'.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-conference-live-updates-theresa-may-speech-brexit-boris-johnson-chequers-tory-a8566021.html

Beyond laughable.

seamus

swampgas wrote: »

As someone else described earlier, she can see that No Deal Brexit gets her out of the impossible situation she has engineered for herself. It doesn't matter if the country is destroyed as long as she can avoid having to lose face to a bunch of foreigners.

We were so sheltered here in the West after World War 2; within a generation it became unfathomable to people as to how a dictator might come to power. How could an individual gain so much power when their dangerous motives were right in your face?

Now we're getting a chance to see the same conditions replay themselves. I'm not saying May has designs on dictatorship, but all indicators are that the Tories are going full-on into a hard Brexit, and realigning their statements and speeches to make it looks like it's all the EU's fault. That the EU is imposing this on the UK.

The British media are eating it up and repeating it. Thus, when economic devastation comes, it will be because Johnny Foreigner attacked us and starved us and made a fool of us. And when the UK economy begins to recover, it will be because of rolled-up sleeves and the plucky British, with no awareness of who landed them in the mess in the first place.

Amazing parallels with the fall and rise of Germany after WW 1.

Nate--IRL--

seamus wrote: »

Amazing parallels with the fall and rise of Germany after WW 1.

I've seen it refereed to as Britain's "Wiemar moment" here and there. It certainly looks rudderless at present.


Nate

Leroy42

The fact that she started her speech by bringing up the spirit of the two world wars tells you all you need to know.

It was a speech about the horrors of Corbyn, everyone needing to get on board with her plan or else they are all doomed.

There was nothing positive. Lots of we will do this, we should aim for that. This despite the Tories being in government for the last x number of years during which they have achieved nothing. She even mentioned, without any hint of embarrassment, that she had made home building her priority when she became PM and now she is going to start thinking of ways that they can actually do it!

In major thing of note, she never mentioned Chequers. She alluded to it, to never said the word. Even she acknowledges how toxic it is. So she wants everyone to rally around a plan she can't even say the name of it. She is still sticking to the line that to tell anyone her plan, beyond Chequers, is to give the game away and EU would take advantage. This despite only last week saying that it was Chequers or No deal and she was suspending talks until the EU agreed. I take that as a pretty sure sign that Chequers, as it currently stands, is dead and they are working on something else.

One thing she did announce was the scrapping of loan limits for councils building local community housing. This is to allow each council to borrow more than the previous limits. This is at a time when the Tories are cutting central funding. So how are the councils supposed to pay back these loans? Its not like there has ever been a problem before will allowing people to borrow unrestricted amounts!

And she claimed, rightly, that this was a pivotal point in UK history. Yet despite that the delegates gave her a standing ovation for basically not coughing during the speech and making some dancing jokes. That was it.

Professor Moriarty

seamus wrote: »

We were so sheltered here in the West after World War 2; within a generation it became unfathomable to people as to how a dictator might come to power. How could an individual gain so much power when their dangerous motives were right in your face?

Now we're getting a chance to see the same conditions replay themselves. I'm not saying May has designs on dictatorship, but all indicators are that the Tories are going full-on into a hard Brexit, and realigning their statements and speeches to make it looks like it's all the EU's fault. That the EU is imposing this on the UK.

The British media are eating it up and repeating it. Thus, when economic devastation comes, it will be because Johnny Foreigner attacked us and starved us and made a fool of us. And when the UK economy begins to recover, it will be because of rolled-up sleeves and the plucky British, with no awareness of who landed them in the mess in the first place.

Amazing parallels with the fall and rise of Germany after WW 1.

I would put Boris in the same category as Trump. A dangerous and populist buffoon.

Seth Brundle

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would put Boris in the same category as Trump. A dangerous and populist buffoon.

It may be genetic...

Boris Johnson’s father Stanley Johnson last night claimed that there has “never been a hard border” in Ireland.
...
“This whole Irish question has been elevated into a tail which wags the dog. It’s absolutely ludicrous, there’s never been a hard border in Ireland and I’m sure there won’t be a hard border.”

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/theres-never-been-a-hard-border-in-ireland-boris-johnsons-father-on-brexit-37380372.html

Econ__

swampgas wrote: »

From the Guardian's updates just now:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/oct/03/tory-conference-may-announces-fuel-duty-freeze-despite-treasury-concerns-about-800m-cost-politics-live


As someone else described earlier, she can see that No Deal Brexit gets her out of the impossible situation she has engineered for herself. It doesn't matter if the country is destroyed as long as she can avoid having to lose face to a bunch of foreigners.

There won't be a 'no deal'.

Raab confirmed that if the EU didn't cooperate in that scenario, no deal would be 'intolerable'.

The EU27 + the Commission know this, which is why they will cooperate with one another to ensure that each of them does not make plans to strike mini bilateral deals with the UK in order to mitigate the worst effects of a no deal scenario.

This is clearly the Commission's strategy (see airline industry criticising their 'block' on aviation talks, member state ambassadors banned from attending no deal briefings in London etc.)

As the clock ticks and once it becomes clear to the UK that there will be no 'mini deals' to mitigate the worst effects of no deal - they will know they could not survive it for long and would end up humiliatingly returning to the negotiating table within a week.

Many in the UK don't know this yet (the Westminster bubble is a resilient echo chamber) but there will come a point when reality bites. And at that point they will not contemplate leaving the EU without a deal.

swampgas

Econ__ wrote: »

There won't be a 'no deal'.

Raab confirmed that if the EU didn't cooperate in that scenario, no deal would be 'intolerable'.

The EU27 + the Commission know this, which is why they will cooperate with one another to ensure that each of them does not make plans to strike mini bilateral deals with the UK in order to mitigate the worst effects of a no deal scenario.

This is clearly the Commission's strategy (see airline industry criticising their 'block' on aviation talks, member state ambassadors banned from attending no deal briefings in London etc.)

As the clock ticks and once it becomes clear to the UK that there will be no 'mini deals' to mitigate the worst effects of no deal - they will know they could not survive it for long and would end up humiliatingly returning to the negotiating table within a week.

Many in the UK don't know this yet (the Westminster bubble is a resilient echo chamber) but there will come a point when reality bites. And at that point they will not contemplate leaving the EU without a deal.

I would like to believe that. But IMO the UK government is so fractured and dysfunctional, that even if the PM+cabinet decide to take whatever the EU offer, Parliament might vote it down anyway.

Theere isn't a lot of time left - weeks perhaps - for the UK to get its act together, and decide what it wants, one way or the other.

PopePalpatine

What I can't wrap my head around is that somehow, someone thought a clause named after one of Britain's most despotic rulers is still palatable in an effectively secular, pluralist constitutional monarchy.

Sam Russell

swampgas wrote: »

I would like to believe that. But IMO the UK government is so fractured and dysfunctional, that even if the PM+cabinet decide to take whatever the EU offer, Parliament might vote it down anyway.

Theere isn't a lot of time left - weeks perhaps - for the UK to get its act together, and decide what it wants, one way or the other.

That is General Election time then. Gov cannot command a majority, go to the country - again.