Not for the first time in recent weeks, a poll has made waves amongst commentators and the markets. The latest example came from ORB in an internet poll that appeared in Saturday’s Independent. Its headline figures were Leave 55%, Remain 45%. Although the Leave tally in the poll was boosted by two points as a result of a decision to focus on the figures after the data had been weighted by people’s reported propensity to vote (rather than, as had been the practice for this poll hitherto, those not weighted in that way), even the figures when the poll was not weighted in that way (Leave 53%, Remain 47%) still represented the biggest lead yet for Leave in any of ORB’s internet polls.
Not for the first time either, however, a poll that made waves proved to be a bit of an outlier. Two internet polls published 24 hours later reiterated the by now very familiar story from polls conducted via the internet that it is difficult to tell which side is ahead. Opinium for The Observer put Remain ahead by 51% to 49%, just as they did last week. YouGov for The Sunday Times said that Leave were ahead by 51% to 49%, a slight turnaround on the company’s previous figures for The Times in the middle of last week.
However, ORB’s poll was not the first during the last week or so to suggest that Leave may be doing better than at any previous stage during the campaign. As we noted in our last blog, ICM’s most recent poll also gave Leave a record lead. At the same time, one of three polls from YouGov last week gave Leave its highest lead since early February. In contrast, no poll has recently reported a particularly good set of figures for Remain. Thus, while the polls have been bouncing around somewhat (which is just what we should expect given the chance variation to which all polls are subject) they appear to be bouncing around a central point that looks a little more favourable to Leave than before.
Certainly it remains the case that on average polls done over the internet since ‘purdah’ kicked in on May 27th put Leave narrowly ahead – by 51% to 49% – whereas previously the sides were both on 50% each. The weekend’s three polls do not change that calculation. There is thus some, albeit still highly uncertain, evidence that there might have been the smallest of swings to Leave during the last fortnight. Meanwhile, of course, we should remember that most phone polls, which are expected to be more numerous this coming week, have so far nearly all been putting Remain ahead.
One feature of the ORB poll that did attract particular attention was its finding that as many as 42% of those who voted Labour in last year’s general election say they would vote to Leave. This, it was suggested, was symptomatic of how the Labour leadership’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for Remain was undermining support for the EU amongst the party’s supporters. However, if the overall figures in any poll are potentially subject to chance variation, that is certainly the case for any particular sub-group of respondents. The latest YouGov poll, in contrast, suggests that only 27% of 2015 Labour voters will vote to Leave, while the average level of support for Leave amongst Labour supporters across the most recent poll conducted by each company that is polling regularly in this referendum stands at 33%. This latter figure has changed little throughout the campaign. Rather than providing evidence of a sudden swing to Leave amongst Labour supporters, recent polls have simply underlined the point that Labour has been struggling throughout the campaign to persuade many of its supporters to back its point of view – and it is far from being the only party to find itself in that position.
Much of the detail of this weekend’s polling focuses on voters’ perceptions of the personalities in the referendum campaign rather than on people’s views about the issues at stake. Nevertheless, there is some potentially illuminating new material in YouGov’s latest poll about how people view the two key issues of the economy and immigration.
First of all, it appears that the Remain side’s attempt to win voters over through warnings of the allegedly dire consequences of leaving the EU are regarded as over the top by many voters. Only 12% say that the Remain side’s claims about the economy are ‘realistic and true’, while as many as 35% say that not only are they exaggerated but that ‘there is very little truth to them’. In contrast as many as 23% think the Leave side’s claims about immigration are true, while only 29% reckon there is little truth to them. At the same time, no less than 41% feel that the Remain campaign has been the most (sic) scaremongering of the two campaigns, while only 28% reckon the Leave campaign has been. It would seem that the Remain side needs to bear in mind that if its warnings appear to be too shrill they may simply not be believed.
Second, YouGov’s poll also reveals a potentially important asymmetry in how voters view the two issues of the economy and immigration. On immigration, voters are not only inclined to believe that it would be higher if we remain in the EU (52% of all voters and 81% of Leave supporters express that view) but also that it would be lower if we left (49% of all voters and 74% of Leave supporters reckon that would be the case). In other words, when it comes to immigration many voters regard leaving the EU as a potential solution to what they view as a significant problem.
On the economy, however, the picture is rather different. While 45% of all voters and as many as 84% of Remain supporters think that leaving the EU would damage the economy, only 19% of all voters and 41% of Remain supporters think that staying would prove positively beneficial. This suggests that while the Remain side may have been relatively successful at persuading voters of the economic disadvantages of leaving the EU, it has largely failed to persuade them of the benefits that would flow from staying. Given that the debate about the economy appears to be the Remain side’s strongest card, this asymmetry of perspective on the issue might be regarded as an important strategic weakness in its case.
Meanwhile, the debate about the importance of ensuring that polls of referendum vote intentions are representative of the population in terms of voters’ educational background continues. While Opinium have not opted to weight their data by educational background (though they are now doing so by how socially liberal or conservative people appear to be, a phenomenon that varies accoding to educational background) they have published details of the proportion of graduates etc. in their latest poll. They report that 37% of their sample have a degree or equivalent professional qualification, a figure that may not be wholly out of line with the 35% who were classified in the most recent British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey as having a degree or other higher educational qualification. However, only 7% of Opinium’s respondents are classified as having no formal qualifications, well below the 18% figure in the most recent BSA. But given that those with fewer qualifications are more likely to be in favour of leaving the EU, any deficit in this respect in Opinium’s sample can hardly be used to help explain why its internet polls, like those of other company, are more likely to be more favourable to Leave.
One company, however, that has now decided to pay more attention to the educational backgrounds of its respondents is Ipsos MORI. In conducting their phone polls they now propose both to use educational background as one of the criteria used in sampling respondents and to weight their final sample by educational background. Their move is an acknowledgment that the claim that phone polls contain too many graduates may in their case at least be correct and that this could help explain why their polls typically report better results for Remain. As a result, the company state that if it had been applied to their last poll, the change (together with checking whether respondents are registered to vote) would have taken two points off the Remain tally. Such a reduction will not be enough to close the gap between internet and phone polls entirely, but thanks to this and a decision by Ipsos MORI now also to take into account who is more or less likely to vote we should not be surprised if the company’s next poll (due this week) gives Remain rather less than the 60% with which it was credited in its last poll. We now await what the coming week will bring.
By John Curtice
John Curtice is Senior Research Fellow at NatCen and at 'UK in a Changing Europe', Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, and Chief Commentator on the What UK Thinks: EU website.
Vote Leave are deluding themselves. This EU referendum has become a right wing coup to replace our elected government with an unelected one that will “take control”, then be kicked out as soon as there is a new general election, whether that be in 2020 or sooner. That is because the realisation will by then have dawned that the horrible economic, social and legal mess they have created is not as easy to sort out as they told us. I expect their leaders know this but think it is a price worth paying. Vote Remain. Report
David Cameron is to blame for this mess
he was the one who lit the touch paper first..He should resign win or lose Report
So David explain how exactly you obtained your BSc Hon ?Report
An emergency budget after the Brexit vote, even though absolutely nothing changes in economic and fiscal terms for two solid years?
And we are to believe that Remain are not panicking?Report
You are seriously delusional in thinking that nothing changes in economic and fiscal terms with a Brexit Vote. The Bank of England summarized the risks of Brexit today when it released its minutes from yesterday’s meeting of the monetary policy committee:
“As the Committee set out last month, the most significant risks to the MPC’s forecast concern the referendum. A vote to leave the EU could materially alter the outlook for output and inflation, and therefore the appropriate setting of monetary policy. Households could defer consumption and firms delay investment, lowering labour demand and causing unemployment to rise. Through financial market and confidence channels, there are also risks of adverse spill-overs to the global economy. At the same time, supply growth is likely to be lower over the forecast period, reflecting slower capital accumulation and the need to reallocate resources. Sterling is also likely to depreciate further, perhaps sharply. This combination of influences on demand, supply and the exchange rate could lead to a materially lower path for growth and a notably higher path for inflation than in the central projections set out in the May Inflation Report. In such circumstances, the MPC would face a trade-off between stabilising inflation on the one hand and output and employment on the other. The implications for the direction of monetary policy will depend on the relative magnitudes of the demand, supply and exchange rate effects. The MPC will take whatever action is needed, following the outcome of the referendum, to ensure that inflation expectations remain well anchored and inflation returns to the target over the appropriate horizon.”
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2016/006.aspx
Report
No, you are confusing two very different things. What the Bank is writing about is temporary reactions. People who see the vote coming may think they need to sell Sterling. Others may think it has fallen enough and will buy. Same for shares. This will cause volatility.
There is volatility around all events. There was at the time of the Scottish referendum, and at the time of the 2015 election, and yes, the Bank will have to react to it.
But there are no long-term secular events until two years out. In particular, we don’t stop trading with the EU, and there is no possibility that Osborne will wake up the day after the vote and find a L30bn hole in tax revenue.
So the Bank will have a job of work to do, and City offices will be staffed overnight, and markets will be volatile, but there wil be no overnight economic collapse. That is just more Remain scaremongering.Report
Of course there won’t be overnight collapse and there will be increased volatility in the markets but that isn’t what The Bank of England is writing about. It has warned that leaving could precipitate a technical recession which is at least two quarters of negative growth in the economy. The risks that the Bank highlighted were higher inflation, reduced investment and job losses. It isn’t Remain scaremongering. It is the Bank of England reporting its evidence-based judgments on the biggest threats to its ability to achieve its core objectives of maintaining monetary and financial stability. Report
Your throwing out the baby with the bathwater and iI can’t see what’s to gain. We will still be complaining about problems instead of looking at the benefits. I prefer to pick the flowers not the weedsReport
Media headline “Leave ahead by X%” sell more papers, adverts, attracts more visits to media websites, you can make more money on foreign exchange market if Leave is ahead, etc. Overall more attractive headline than “Remain ahead by X%”. Remain promotes stability and Leave promotes chaos and uncertainty. So, in the short term, there are many vested interests in publishing favourable news for Brexit than for Remain. Nobody wants chaos in the long term but in short period of time why not make as much money as possible of naive people. It is naive to think that EU or immigration generated current problems.Report
So there is nothing to worry about, right? It’s just people making a buck over sensation. So why is Remain in a panic?Report
Who said that Remain is in a panic? Media outlets that rely on dodgy polls and naive people who trust everything they read and hear. I would not be so sure that vote Leave will win next week.
Another way of looking at the results of referendum by David Allen Green from FT published 14/06/2016.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
Title: Can the United Kingdom government legally disregard a vote for Brexit?
What follows any referendum vote next week for the United Kingdom to leave the EU? From a legal perspective, the immediate consequence is simple: nothing will happen.
The relevant legislation did not provide for the referendum result to have any formal trigger effect. The referendum is advisory rather than mandatory. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform did have an obligation on the government to legislate in the event of a “yes” vote (the vote was “no” so this did not matter). But no such provision was included in the EU referendum legislation.
What happens next in the event of a vote to leave is therefore a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable. The UK government could seek to ignore such a vote; to explain it away and characterise it in terms that it has no credibility or binding effect (low turnout may be such an excuse). Or they could say it is now a matter for parliament, and then endeavour to win the parliamentary vote. Or ministers could try to re-negotiate another deal and put that to another referendum. There is, after all, a tradition of EU member states repeating referendums on EU-related matters until voters eventually vote the “right” way.
What matters in law is when and whether the government invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This is the significant “red button”. Once the Article 50 process is commenced then Brexit does become a matter of law, and quite an urgent one. It would appear this process is (and is intended to be) irreversible and irrevocable once it starts. But invoking Article 50 is a legally distinct step from the referendum result — it is not an obligation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Article 50 in full contains the following provisions:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are three points of interest here in respect of any withdrawal from the EU by the UK.
First, it is a matter for a member state’s “own constitutional requirements” as to how it decides to withdraw. The manner is not prescribed: so it can be a referendum, or a parliamentary vote, or some other means. In the UK, it would seem that some form of parliamentary approval would be required — perhaps a motion or resolution rather than a statute. The position, however, is not clear and the UK government has so far been coy about being specific.
Second, the crucial act is the notification by the member state under Article 50(2). That is the event which commences the formal process, which is then intended to be effected by negotiation and agreement. There is no (express) provision for a member state to withdraw from the process or revoke the notification. Once the notification is given, the member state and the EU are stuck with it.
And third, there is a hard deadline of two years. This is what gives real force to Article 50. The alternative would be the prospect of a never ending story of rounds of discussions and negotiations. Once notification is given, then the member state is out in two years, unless this period is extended by unanimous agreement. It is possible that such unanimity may be forthcoming – but this would be outside of the power of the member state. Once the button is pushed, the countdown cannot just be switched off by a member state saying it has changed its mind, or by claiming that the Article 50 notification was just a negotiation tactic all along. That will not wash.
This said, what is created by international agreement can be undone by international agreement. Practical politicians in Brussels may come up with some muddling fudge which holds off the two year deadline. Or there could be some new treaty amendment. These conveniences cannot, however, be counted on. The assumption must be that once the Article 50 notification is given, the UK will be out of the EU in two years or less.
What happens between a Leave vote and any Article 50 notification will be driven by politics. The conventional wisdom is that, of course, a vote for Brexit would have to be respected. (This is the same conventional wisdom which told us that, of course, Jeremy Corbyn would not be elected Labour leader and that, of course, Donald Trump would not be the Republican nominee.) To not do so would be “unthinkable” and “political suicide” and so on.
And if there is a parliamentary vote before any Article 50 notification then there is the potential irony of those seeking to defend parliamentary sovereignty demanding that an extra-parliamentary referendum be treated as binding. But it must be right that the final decision is made by parliament, regardless of what the supposed defenders of parliamentary sovereignty say.
One suspects that no great thought went into the practical and legal consequences of a Leave vote because it was expected that the vote would be, of course, for the UK to remain. That may well be the result: nobody knows what will happen next week, and only a fool relies on opinion polls. And referendums do tend to support the status quo (though not always). It could turn out that worrying about what happens if there is a vote for Brexit is misplaced.
What is certain is that if there an Article 50 notification then there will be immense legal work to be done. Over 40 years of law-making — tens of thousands of legal instruments — will have to be unpicked and either placed on some fresh basis or discarded with thought as to the consequences. The UK government has depended since 1972 — indeed it has over-depended — on it being easy to implement law derived from the EU. The task of repeal and replacement will take years to complete, if it is ever completed. Even if the key legislation — especially the European Communities Act 1972 — is repealed there will have to be holding and saving legislation for at least a political generation.
A vote for Brexit will not be determinative of whether the UK will leave the EU. That potential outcome comes down to the political decisions which then follow before the Article 50 notification. The policy of the government (if not of all of its ministers) is to remain in the EU. The UK government may thereby seek to put off the Article 50 notification, regardless of political pressure and conventional wisdom.
There may already be plans in place to slow things down and to put off any substantive decision until after summer. In turn, those supporting Brexit cannot simply celebrate a vote for leave as a job done — for them the real political work begins in getting the government to make the Article 50 notification as soon as possible with no further preconditions.
On the day after a vote for Brexit, the UK will still be a member state of the EU. All the legislation which gives effect to EU law will still be in place. Nothing as a matter of law changes in any way just because of a vote to Leave. What will make all the legal difference is not a decision to leave by UK voters in a non-binding advisory vote, but the decision of the prime minister on making any Article 50 notification.
And what the prime minister will do politically after a referendum vote for Brexit is, at the moment, as unknown as the result of the referendum itself.
Report
And this lengthy cut and paste has what, exactly, to do with your original claim?Report
Yawn yawn post too longReport
Make more money on the exchange market ay ?! I bet all those fat cats in the city along with a few politicos are buying the dreaded Euro like its going out of style – then again it probably will !Report
This is subjective, but I see a change happening in the comment-sphere as well as the polls. Polly Toynbee in the Guardian is now openly discussing life after Brexit – obviously, she doesn’t like it – and various people are suggesting wheezes to avoid Brexit even if Leave wins. One suggestion is to have Cameron do a real immigration deal with Brussels, effectively suspending free movement, and then hope the voters quickly forget who won the referendum.
We seem to have gone from “Obviously, those nasty people can’t win” to “What if they do?”Report
You mentioned polly Toynbee in your post.I can’t. believe what that woman’s been writing of late.Especially. today re the murder of am mp.In my opinion she showed no compassion but ranyed on about xenophobia.A woman was killed leaving two children this should have paled everything into significance.P.Toynbee showed a lack of respect.I am ashamed of the Guardian.Report
I meant insignificance of course.Report
We seem to be as a country voting with our hearts and not our heads. I agree not everything is right with the EU but in my opinion it is the best option, from an economic point of view. However I am very much afraid that we are quietly heading to a situation with Boris as PM and Trump as president of the USA.Report
I don’t think that is a valid characterization. I think that there is a growing realization that the EU is of declining importance to our trade. From taking 60% of our trade at the peak, the EU was down to 55% in 2000, 45% this year, and by 2030 Price Waterhouse Cooper project that the EU share will be down to 37%.
No-one should be surprised by this. When emerging markets are growing at 6-7% a year and the EU outside the UK is growing at 1/2 to one percent, then it is inevitable that the importance of the EU for our trade must decline.
When you look at the numbers even today, it becomes quite clear. From tenth place a decade ago, China is now in fourth place as a UK trading partner. Our exports to China have quadrupled since 2002. Our exports to China rose 25% last year, while our exports to Germany decline by 2.5%.
This isn’t really a matter of heart versus head. It is a matter of Remain looking backwards at how important and prosperous the EU used to be, versus Exit looking forward to a future in which the EU will be of declining importance to us economically and the rest of the World more.
To re-orient our trade even more towards the rest of the World, we need to follow International trade regulations. Belonging to a trade block in relative decline isn’t much help.
The rest of the EU is struggling with more and more intractable fiscal, economic and demographic problems. If they want to proceed with political integration to try and save the euro, that is their right and we should do nothing to obstruct it. But it makes very little sense to keep ourselves tied to a trade block that is declining in importance and which can’t do much to assist us in trade with the rest of the World.Report
I am almost 80 and female with a PhD. Surely voters should not influenced so much by personalities but by the issues of democracy and responsibility We do have a great once in a lifetime opportunity to make things better by voting out. Those of us who voted In in 1975 did so in totally different circumstance and for a much smaller union.Report
Not to lower the tone of this conversation but several years ago I went for an endoscopy (where is this going I hear you think) and in the pre procedure discussion the Dr asked if I wanted a very local anaesthetic or something a bit more. I asked what did most people have and he said the local and not realising the naivety of my question off we went. What I should have asked was what do most people have who do this for a 2nd time! Older voters have been here before, I am 38 and never been here before and while I could almost stomach voting for the eu as it is I don’t think I could stand what it will become. older demographics are voting leave for a reason they have been here before and didn’t like what happened next. vote leave!
Report
I’m of the older generation and I think the EU works well. It’s the Euro that has the problem and even these will be resolved over time. We need to go forwards not backwards. It is not the time to give up when we are past the half way point. They will probably already have invented a new way of having an endoscopy!Report
Just like the other people who have commented, all my friends and all my work colleagues say they are voting to leave. The only person I know who is voting remain is my wife and she’s a lilly, livered, liberal and doesn’t know what she’s talking about.Report
No reason to seek work abroad when you have your own currency that is allowed to float and devalue debt away.
This will enable countries to reboot their economies and create job’s.
Good for them,good for us.Report
We thought it would be the Greeks that would bring down this crazy union, we have the chance to save our country and reshape Europe for better.
Finally countries will default and we can get debt burden sorted.
End of the Euro and a new Eu.Report
I am definitely for leave as is my partner who is from outside eu. I have two brothers both with degrees 1 is in the other out .Their wives agree. My children however seem to be in so that gives out 4 and 6 in . My partner however says everyone he speaks to at work are out they are tech and lower paid workers mostly. Most of the family and workers are in greater London area. My conclusion is that graduates and young are mostly in and older (whether educated or not ) and the less well paid are out. The family are mostly London so result not reflective of uk given the family bias to educated degree level in the sample and most are London area I therefore predict out will just win.!,,,
Report
Chris, I agree with your conclusions about the voting intentions of various categories. You seem to be a logical and reasonable sort of person. Have you considered deferring to the viewpoint of your children? It is,after all, their future rather than yours which will be most affected by the result of this referendum. Report
My children make their decisions I make mine . What is more I have more experience of life [and of the EU ] than they do . I a have a degree in economics and have concluded that whether we are in or out , it make much difference to your GDP either way although in the longer term the opportunities may grow . The treasury models have made biased assumptions .Even if we failed to get tariff free accost the EU market [ unlikely die to our deficit in trade ] the tariffs are so low that it wouldn’t make much difference [ The £ can fluctuate more and frequently does] . So overall I think there wont be any hit on the economy and in the longer term we may actually do better when we get free trade deals with countries like US , Brazil ,China, Japan New Zealand ,Australia and Canada etc
I used to work in government and I am well aware of the negative impact of some EU regulation [ not all are bad I admit ] and the frustration when they don’t work well I found out that you cant do anything to change the situation if there’re problems . That is really bad for democracy and it will lead to people switching off from politics altogether . The lack of democracy means we have very little influence ofter the EU and its future direction towards an superstate [ or oblivion if it dont reform [. There too much bureaucracy and laws impact our lives but don’t really understand [ or care much ] about the timapct .Take fishing it has destroyed the industry and fish stocks but not nothing was done until the damage was so great it may be irreversible. Another example, the EU is introducing new legislation on ports . `This will apparently badly damage smaller ports in the UK including places like Southampton . Every UK MEP voted against the policy .Yes all 78, – unprecedented – and we lost – AND WE CANT DO ANYTHING about it . Thus cant be good for democracy , Southampton or our future in the longer term .
Finally I feel if anything house prices will rise more quickly if we stay than if we leave because we aren’t building enough now and the population is rising rapidly .I think I know this will be damaging this is very damaging to my kids [ and thier children’s ] future , since most if not all would like to own their own homes . One who has two young children has been unable to get council house she despite being on the waiting list for 15 years. Others are struggling to afford deposits.
I am not sure my kids have really examined all the issues re the `EU that carefully .and of course many are complicated . On balance I feel some of their views are perhaps overly influenced by the the ideals of peace and that that the EU is “cosmopolitan” and i”nternationalist” .in principle of course these are good things. However they have lived under the EU regime all their lives so they don’t necessarily appreciate [or have the experience ] of living in an independent county ; nor do they realise how much sovereignty has been ceded or how our future influence on the EU [ never high } will decline if we stay and the EU move words a political union [ as it must – if they don’t the project will eventually fail ]. The EU was once a force for good but it isn’t any longer .
So for me OUT isa no brainer and as far I’mm concern I am protecting my children’s future .What they vote however is up to them .Report
If we defer in favour of our Children’s future’s then we may well be committing them to a totalitarian state in which they would have no voice and no identity. Alternatively, the EU would have imploded causing worldwide chaos from which they would be subject to many years of hardship and uncertainty.
The EU has only itself to blame for its declining stature. It is an organisation for the Euro based currency and any Country such as the UK who is outside of that currency will in any event become a sideline to the main show.
I voted at the last referendum for the Common Market, I believed what I was being told and it is only 40 years later that I can truly say that I considered that I was lied to and misled. I will most definitely be voting to leave and I can honestly say in my part of Kent that the many family and friends I have spoken to have expressed their committed intention to vote leave with the exception of just two family members.
Report
In my family it’s 5 out, 3 in, mostly degree, or higher (Masters/PhD), qualified. Age and political affiliation doesn’t seem to be a factor, my father is voting in and he’s in his 70s, mind you us ‘younger ones’ are all middle aged, not 20s. Those of us with children (too young to vote) are mostly voting out because we sincerely believe that will be best for their future. One sister and brother-in-law are voting in just because he’s been scared by his boss into believing the company will shift to Poland if we Brexit, obscene blackmail.
I would have been more interested in what the Bremanians had to say if:
1. They’d offered some solution to the uncontrolled immigration we’ve witnessed over the last decade.
2. They’d offered some positives for staying in the EU.
3. They’d stuck to facts and concerns, rather than ridiculous ‘factual’ exaggerations. I’m aware the Brexit party have done their share of scaremongering too, but the Bremanians have whipped themselves in to a totally comedic frenzy of ‘The End is Nigh!’ billboard wearing and soapbox shouting, I half expect Cameron to appear in sackcloth flagellating himself and foaming at the mouth next. Report
“TRUE DOES NOT MEAN TRUE ALWAYS OR TRUE EVERYWHERE”. I would suggest that before making any comment everybody repeats this quote several time, think about it for a while and then start writing comments or talking about not just Brexit but anything else in life. Small dose of philosophy would be good for everybody related to this referendum.
Brexit supporters are using really nasty rhetoric and attacking immigration as one of the main causes of the problems in the UK. It is a difficult to be a good person but to be nasty one is very easy. Following the quote above then I could pick the point in history where immigration was very good for type of people who support Brexit. When British Empire went to Australia, India, what today is USA, Canada, etc and did what it did in these territories then it was OK to have controlled or uncontrolled immigration and do awful things in these territories to native population.
I do not want to carry on with this argument but as you can see where this can lead us. So if in your family you are all PhD or Masters educated it is strange that you find yourself aligned with people like Nigel Farage, BNP and any other extreme right oriented parties (do not forget like National Front in France who use the same argument as Brexit).
Another argument used very often against EU is unelected bureaucrats. How about House of Lords? Elected by whom? A lot of bureaucrats in the EU administration is sent there or voted by elected officials in the UK.
To repeat again, I hate the above type of arguments and was only demonstrating how easy is to be a nasty person if you do not control what type of comments you make.
Report
The House of Lords cannot initiate legislation, nor can they veto it. They can only comment on it, propose amendments, or hold it up for strictly limited periods, and even then the Commons can invoke the Parliament Act to put an end to the delay.
The EU has this back to front. In the EU it is the unelected part that initiates policies and the elected part that can comment on them, and, usually, rubber stamp them.
If you dislike bad arguments, you could begin by improving your own.Report
For goodness sake UK WAKE UP. This is about recovering our right to kick out lawmakers. The last general election was in 1975. That is too long ago. 40 years. JEEZ. SOME PEOPLE HAVE NEVER HAD A VOTE IN THIS COUNTRY. This is not DEMOCRACY. VOTE LEAVE.Report
Adam, what are you shouting about? People tend not to listen to shouters.
Do you understand the difference between a referendum and a General Election?
The last General Election was just over 13 months ago in 2015. There wasn’t a GE in 1975
though there were two in 1974. Report
He meant the LAST REAL general election. I wish pro-EU people would not skirt around the issue of sovereignty and self-governance as if it isn’t part of this debate. It is. There is no point in having general elections when vast swathes of policy areas are now affected by decisions made by the European Commission and European Parliament and which we HAVE TO abide by or be taken to the EU Court of Justice. Simply put, the British parliament in Westminster is SUBSERVIENT to these EU institutions and have been since the 1st January 1973.Report
Stop the racist Remain immigration policy and vote Leave.Report
Everyone I know is voting to leave and they will vote, great news vote leave and get our country back.Report
I live in an affluent Tory constituancy and most of those I have asked (75%) have declared an intention to vote leave. My wider family are 95% committed to voting leave. Nobody I know has ever been contacted by a telephone polling agency.
I simply don’t get these polls.Report
That’s because outside Surrey there is a place called “The North.” There are other places called Scotland,Wales, and Ireland but we don’t go there as they seem scary and aren’t called Jeremy.Report
We are at war and ur borders are open. Simple decision. Winston must be spinning in his grave. Out.Report
Donald Trump, is that you?!Report
They are going to build a wall.Report
Winston Churchill advocated a federal Europe after the war. Check your history. Welcome the immigrants they are going to pay your for your old age. They are nice hard working people and the Poles helped us win the war.Report
And who is going to help the immigrants out in their old age?Report
If they stay that long they will have paid for their own.Report
Churchill did indeed advocate a federal Europe, but one that the UK would not be a member of.Report
This ws true in 1930’s but after the war he changed his stance to encourage all to join together starting with Germany and FranceReport
JH Our borders are not open. And I repeat look back over past decades and every choice of significance — about the size of the state, the structure of the economy, taxation and welfare, or war and peace — has been made by ministers and MPs. But you are so built up in your blind prejudice you can’t bear to think this. Vote Remain for sanity and prosperity.
Report
For goodness sake UK WAKE UP. This is about recovering our right to kick out lawmakers. VOTE LEAVE.Report
Harmonisation of laws is the way forward. To think that we will be betters at it on our own is agrogant. Most of the laws are only harmonisation of basic commercial requirements that help our industry know what they are buying reach a set standard. They do not effect the average person. A DIY method would be to expand the old British Standard Institution costing millions and the standards would still have to comply with the EU standards – now that would be a waste. VOTE REMAINReport
Too much harmonization gets you the Potato famine. If you reduce everything to a monoculture, then defects affect everyone, and because everyone is committed to monoculture, mistakes are very hard to undo.
If you want an example, look at the Common Fisheries Policy. It has been a disaster both from the point of view of the fishermen, but also from the point of view of conservation and the environment. But no-one can admit that, so it remains un-reformed.
And where trade regulations are concerned, they are more and more arrived at at the International level, not the EU level. The EU usually merely acts as conduit to pass International regulations down to its members, in other words a pretty superfluous level of Government.Report
Sorry, but your reference to potato famine is too obscure for me. I thnik a return to the cod wars is not a good way to get on with your neighbours. Difficult problems have to be resolved together.
I’m glad you pointed out that increasingly more regulation statutes are world standards. All the more reason for not trying to do it ourselves.Report
Hi Philip. I just thought I’d butt in to point out that the Cod Wars were all about the Icelanders protecting their fishing grounds, and that having stayed out of the EU they and Norway still have thriving fishing grounds.
Additionally, if these regulations are largely determined by international bodies other than the EU, if the EU is in effect an intermediary, then perhaps British interests would be better served by being out of the EU and having a UK seat on the decision making bodies of these various international organisations.
As things stand, the EU is negotiating on our behalf, which means we have 1/27th of a seat. There’s probably more to say, but you can probably put the case for Leave as well as I can, if you try.Report
Ha! That entirely innocent word in the second sentence has been replaced by asterisks, making it look as if I’d been rude. I only used a word meaning ” to interfere or meddle “.
Just for the record.Report
John says “discovering our right to kick out lawmakers.” What does this mean I wonder? We elect or dismiss our government every five years
The irony is that Britain does make its own decisions. Look back over past decades and every choice of significance — about the size of the state, the structure of the economy, taxation and welfare, or war and peace — has been made by ministers and MPs. At this point, though, the hands of Leavers reach for their ears.
Report
It means that our politicians are now accountable to Brussels instead of us. They make decisions that they know would be unpopular with a majority of British people, then they blame the EU, safe in the knowledge that we have been rendered helpless – unable to vote anyone out or change anything. All the traditional mainstream parties have the same pro-EU mindset, so until recently we have had little alternative but to keep going along with them whether we like it or not.
The Remain campaign even poses this lack of democracy as a good thing – effectively claiming that we can’t be trusted to look after our own interests by voting in British parties who will protect workers’ rights, so we need the EU to do it for us! Seriously, that is pretty damned insulting, wouldn’t you say?
If we vote to remain, we are sanctioning this and agreeing overtly and irrevocably to political union. The whole principle of a mandate derived from the people will be undermined and replaced with a concept in which orders are passed down from Brussels and imposed upon us. After centuries of struggling to create a country in which leaders were finally obliged to bend to the will of ordinary people, I find it profoundly depressing that so many people are willing to blithely give up something so precious without even realising what they’re doing. And for what? A few quid here or there? A vague feeling of fondness for our European friends? A misguided notion that we have to be in a political union with Europe in order to trade with them, or to co-operate with them on matters of mutual interest? An inability to see through the lies and obfuscation of the politicians who take your naive acquiescence for granted and are laughing at you behind your back?
I am still waiting for the Remain campaign to come up with a single positive reason for staying in the EU that does not revolve around what might happen if we leave, or which could not be achieved outside of political union. They unanimously seem to admit that the EU needs to be reformed – but they have no idea how to achieve it. If they haven’t managed to do it in 40 years and with the threat of Brexit in the air, how in God’s name do they think they will do it after this?! They are trying to talk you (or threaten you) into staying in an organisation that they cannot defend in its current form, cannot change no matter what they claim, and cannot justify on its own merits. Ask yourself why. And if you fall for it, God help you and all the rest of us.
Report
Laura, the EU is as democratic as Westminster.
– In the UK we elect representatives who act on our behalf and choose an exectutive.
– In the EU memeber countries elect representatives oun our behalf and choose an executive.
– In the UK there is a chamber that is unelected
– In the EU there are functions where the representatives make a democratic choice across the EU.
Economically, Politically the EU is a no-brainer. Imperfect or not (and who would argue UK insitutiions are flawless)
That leaves Xenophobia as the driving motivation – thought we were past all that.Report
Baloney. In the UK we can get rid of our entire government in one go if they don’t represent us satisfactorily. Thus power flows from the masses and those who rule over us are ultimately dependent on us for their jobs. That is democracy.
In the EU, the Commission (not elected) proposes legislation which is then rubber-stamped by an EU Parliament consisting of representatives from 28 countries. That legislation is then imposed downwards on the masses, whether they like it or not. There is nothing we can do about it, because our politicians will (and do) point out that it’s the EU’s fault so nothing will change even if we vote them out of office. We don’t have any say in the make-up of the vast majority of the EU Parliament, so we’re powerless there too. That is dictatorship.
Economically, politically, socially – I cannot see a single scenario in which it would not be better for the people of Britain to be governed by British politicians in the sole interests of Britain and her people. If you’re in favour of a United States of Europe, then you have a good reason to vote Remain. But you would be in a tiny minority. If that was the referendum question, then Leave would win by a landslide and everybody knows it.
P.S. Do drop the ‘xenophobia’ thing – it’s just so tiresome, lazy and pathetic.
Report
Well said Laura spot on
Report
Yes. wake up, vote Brexit, lock the doors, pull the curtains, hide under the duvet, and then see in a new dawn.
It’ll be a place where immigration in a world of eight billion desperate humans is all past. The environment will spring back into life and tax dodgers will get their just deserts. Flowers will pick themselves, Europe will look after itself, and we can all go down the pub with the knowledge of a job well done.
Report
No, we’ll just keep calm and carry on. Perhaps you don’t understand the British very well.Report
Thanks for the analysis of the ORB poll. Very enlightening. On the topic of the Labour Party, I am not so sure that it is the Party having trouble persuading the rank and file, but rather the leadership sending out conflicting messages. Yesterday Corbyn said that he was at “seven or seven and a half out of ten” on the EU. I don’t know whether to think that’s damning by faint prasie, or if Corbyn has found yet another personal position that has to be endlessly explained and spun.
Incidentally, I don’t think the Labour Party are in an easy position here. It is its own members who are most affected by the EU’s negative effects, and its history is that it was founded to protect the rights of British workers. Not an easy fence to straddle.Report
Other features of the ORB poll that attracted attention were 92% of sample (consisting of registered voters) were intending to vote and that 56% of the London sample was in favour of Leave and 44% in favour of RemainReport