Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's worth pointing out we don't need the extra border guards if we don't leave the eu either

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, it's not like DINLT said all 10 billion were to be spent on border guards, hence the "etc. etc. etc.". I think it's perfectly clear from his post that such border guards were just one thing of many that the 10 billion could pay for.

Actually he did because of the way that it was worded.

I don't expect 10 billion to bail out the economy, but that 10 billion could pay for upgrades at Dover, or a new IT system for customs, or 10,000 new border staff etc etc

by using the terminology 'or' that means one or the other (otherwise the sentence should have used 'and' (e.g hot 'or' cold, this 'or that' etc).

To be fair, it could be used exclusively for guards, that'd fund them for about 59 years - long after we've rejoined the eu

Herzlos wrote:
To be fair, it could be used exclusively for guards, that'd fund them for about 59 years - long after we've rejoined the eu

That's true. However I highly doubt DINLT was considering that within the post. What I'm really pointing out though is that the concept of billion's etc can be lost on many because of the scale. It effectively amounts to 'a lot' without a real concept of how big that number really. That's mostly because we live in a world of small numbers (so 1 vs 1000). The concept of 1000 £1s is easy to grasp whereas a 10000 million much less so and is not really understood until brought into more 'practical' concepts (generally people's perspective as to what they think a billion is a lot less than what it really is). What it means that, for example, when people argue that they don't worry about billions or trillions of £s worth of damage to the economy coming from Wrexit their concept of the actual value is less than what it really is and hence easier to dismiss.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, it's not like DINLT said all 10 billion were to be spent on border guards, hence the "etc. etc. etc.". I think it's perfectly clear from his post that such border guards were just one thing of many that the 10 billion could pay for.

We rarely agree on anything, but thanks for the back up


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
To be fair, it could be used exclusively for guards, that'd fund them for about 59 years - long after we've rejoined the eu

That's true. However I highly doubt DINLT was considering that within the post. What I'm really pointing out though is that the concept of billion's etc can be lost on many because of the scale. It effectively amounts to 'a lot' without a real concept of how big that number really. That's mostly because we live in a world of small numbers (so 1 vs 1000). The concept of 1000 £1s is easy to grasp whereas a 10000 million much less so and is not really understood until brought into more 'practical' concepts (generally people's perspective as to what they think a billion is a lot less than what it really is). What it means that, for example, when people argue that they don't worry about billions or trillions of £s worth of damage to the economy coming from Wrexit their concept of the actual value is less than what it really is and hence easier to dismiss.

I was throwing general ideas into the mix with my comments about border staff.

The point I was trying to make that the money should come home, and be spent on whatever our parliament sees fit, be it border staff, the NHS, or giving every UK household a 6 pack of salt and vinegar crisps!

What the cash is spent on is not the issue - it's the principal that is at stake. I believe that money owed to the UK by the EU should be returned to the UK ASAP.

... I think the UK needs to be very careful with apparently trying to break up or ruin an international financial institution.... such actions might not be well received by other banks yes ?

But I'd be happy to see X or XX amount withdrawn per annum and used towards paying off the debt we have for other parts of the EU.


meanwhile..





One hopes it's just poor phrasing but I'm not sure that the cheapness of justice should be seen as the most important point surely ?

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/27/month-by-month-during-2017-how-the-leaving-eu-right-lead-has-moved-in-yougovs-brexit-tracker/

There’s a new YouGov poll out which has LAB retaining its 2 points lead over CON. The survey also included the firm’s regular trackers on opinion in relation to Brexit.

In broad terms this has Brexit right at 43% (up 1) with Brexit wrong at 45% (same) so really not much change. The big picture is seen in the chart above – the nation remains broadly divided with the monthly average “right to leave” lead for only the second month moving into negative territory.

This polling, because it has been asked in the same form so often, is establishing itself as the leading polling indicator. There are simply many more data points.

The monthly changes are not huge but taking a month of polls rather than single ones gives us a better sense of the trend.

...on the other hand...




reported to the Daily Mail !?!

... bit sad they apparently cannot spell "scum" but there you go.

I guess being reported to The Daily Mail over supporting Remain is like being reported to the Cookie Monster for not liking biscuits.





.... so leave supporters do not trust anyone then ..?

@reds8n

with regards to opinion polls, I trust them and I don't trust them. If that makes any sense

They got Trump spectacularly wrong, didn't see Brexit coming, and many polls thought May would be gone by Christmas.

Now, a crisis might arise that sees the removal van heading for Downing Street, but IMO, I think May has weathered the storm for the time being.

But yeah, I'm 50/50 on opinion polls, but John Curtice speaks a lot of sense. Always worth listening too.

https://twitter.com/johncurticeontv?lang=en

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@reds8n

with regards to opinion polls, I trust them and I don't trust them. If that makes any sense

They got Trump spectacularly wrong, didn't see Brexit coming, and many polls thought May would be gone by Christmas.

Now, a crisis might arise that sees the removal van heading for Downing Street, but IMO, I think May has weathered the storm for the time being.

But yeah, I'm 50/50 on opinion polls, but John Curtice speaks a lot of sense. Always worth listening too.

Modern events have proven half the polls are a worth absolutely nothing. The great vaunted pollsters who helped to shape people's planning have been thrown for a massive loop and least 2-3 big events have been wrong.

I think they have lost there power abit, there no longer a guarantee.

This is more that the public generally don't understand polls (and how they were mis-presented to us by many organisations). Just because the polls indicated that Trump would lose and Brexit would fail, when the opposite happened, doesn't mean the polls are wrong. The experts work with the polls to give a probability of an out come - they don't declare this will be the outcome. A number of polls (especially from the extremely biased sources) will be outliers that don't conform, but a good pollster will be able to account for that.

If you roll a d100 and we ask an audience to put money on whether you roll a 100 or not, most people will put money on not. If you do happen to roll a 100 those people weren't wrong to put their money against it happening, they factored the probability - that's all a poll does.

Don't blame polls for the public not understanding them.

 Henry wrote:
This is more that the public generally don't understand polls (and how they were mis-presented to us by many organisations). Just because the polls indicated that Trump would lose and Brexit would fail, when the opposite happened, doesn't mean the polls are wrong. The experts work with the polls to give a probability of an out come - they don't declare this will be the outcome. A number of polls (especially from the extremely biased sources) will be outliers that don't conform, but a good pollster will be able to account for that.

If you roll a d100 and we ask an audience to put money on whether you roll a 100 or not, most people will put money on not. If you do happen to roll a 100 those people weren't wrong to put their money against it happening, they factored the probability - that's all a poll does.

Don't blame polls for the public not understanding them.

You mean how the media have treated polls like a dead cert crystal ball for years and even basically declared results before votes even tallied.

Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.

He made a big deal about how they'd keep fighting if they had a narrow loss, even citing 52/48 didn't he? Or was that earlier?

 jhe90 wrote:
You mean how the media have treated polls like a dead cert crystal ball for years and even basically declared results before votes even tallied.

Exactly like that, yes.

 Henry wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
You mean how the media have treated polls like a dead cert crystal ball for years and even basically declared results before votes even tallied.

Exactly like that, yes.

Not to be political US style but did that also cause some of the upsets.

Ie A Hillary supporter in 2016 might think it il be OK if they cannot get to poll that day, a remain voter thinks they got it in the bag so they stay home on a not so mice rainy day etx.


Ie. If people think it's gonna be in thr bag, they may not have thr dame drive to go out and vote.

Likewise there opposite might be driven to go out. To make vote count.
When the polls are close, yet they proclaim victory.
Then strange things can and do happen like that. It can often only take a small swing in one ares to sway a entire vote.

Some UK constituency have very tiny majority.
Some states have a very tight swing percentage.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.

He said that he felt that Remain had probably won by a narrow margin.

 jhe90 wrote:
Ie. If people think it's gonna be in thr bag, they may not have thr dame drive to go out and vote.

Likewise there opposite might be driven to go out. To make vote count.

Believing that your side will be defeated can easily demotivate people from going to vote. The 'what's the point' angle applies to both sides.

Polls have a confidence level and margin of error. Typically something like 95% confidence of being within 2%. Let's remind ourselves that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, which was a couple of percent of all the votes. He got in because of the electoral college system.

To get back on track, if people are foolish enough not to vote because they told a poller they were going to vote X and the polls say X is going to win so they think it's in the bag so they needn't bother to vote, .... well, I don't think anyone can do anything about that. It's why you have a "ground game" to get out your voters on the day. It's why there is an inherent right-wing bias in the UK -- Labour voters are less likely to own cars, and therefore less likely to vote if the weather is bad. That's why Labour Party organisers put effort into arranging lifts and mini-buses.

These problems don't occur in places like China and Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean their system is superior.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I was throwing general ideas into the mix with my comments about border staff.

The point I was trying to make that the money should come home, and be spent on whatever our parliament sees fit, be it border staff, the NHS, or giving every UK household a 6 pack of salt and vinegar crisps!

What the cash is spent on is not the issue - it's the principal that is at stake. I believe that money owed to the UK by the EU should be returned to the UK ASAP.

That really wasn't the point. Yes you provided examples of where the money could be spent. The issue was that your concept of a billion is orders of magnitude out. To be fair this is the same for a lot of people. The general concepts we are taught are on a linear scale because on a day to day basis it is useful. The problem comes when people start talking about 'billions' but lack a comprehension of what that means realistically because it is a logarithmic scale. As such for many people comprehension tends to underestimate just how big a billion (and hence how much bigger 10 billion is). This becomes critical to when we start talking about, for example, the economic impacts of Wrexit and it can lead to an underestimation 'in the minds eye' of how large the problem is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.

He made a big deal about how they'd keep fighting if they had a narrow loss, even citing 52/48 didn't he? Or was that earlier?

Yes he did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Conveniently he back tracked on that when he got what he wanted...the sure sign of someone who only cares about his interests or what he wants without any care about anything or anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
This is more that the public generally don't understand polls (and how they were mis-presented to us by many organisations). Just because the polls indicated that Trump would lose and Brexit would fail, when the opposite happened, doesn't mean the polls are wrong. The experts work with the polls to give a probability of an out come - they don't declare this will be the outcome. A number of polls (especially from the extremely biased sources) will be outliers that don't conform, but a good pollster will be able to account for that.

If you roll a d100 and we ask an audience to put money on whether you roll a 100 or not, most people will put money on not. If you do happen to roll a 100 those people weren't wrong to put their money against it happening, they factored the probability - that's all a poll does.

Don't blame polls for the public not understanding them.

Quite True. I've tried to explain (basic) statistics in these conversations several times but many don't really understand the concept of errors. That figures presented in polls represent the 'most likely' result but that there is a margin of error and that any result on a particular day is subject to statistical variation. This becomes particularly problematic when one very close result is taken as the 'real' result especially when there is a large group not sampled.

My gut instinct about all these referendums is that there is a lot of anti-establishment voting because people don't like the way their life is headed (which is both a government's and individuals responsibility). Hence it draws out a lot of anti-[insert X] votes but they generally are closer to the ceiling of the voting population rather than a floor. If you don't mind the status quo people might be less inclined to vote especially if it looks like your view is going to win anyway. I also wonder just what the result of another referendum would be, that will likely result in those that thought it'll be fine the results going my way to actually come out and vote). The real question is whether it will be enough not just to show the country remains divided.

I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.

Herzlos wrote:
I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.

If there was ever going to be a second referendum, it should have been agreed upon from the very beginning.

It was not, so trying to hold a 2nd one after the fact is moving the goal posts and dirty tricks. You don't get to hold referendum after referendum until you get the answer you wanted. Thats not how referenda work.

If you do that, I'm going to demand a THIRD referendum.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.

If there was ever going to be a second referendum, it should have been agreed upon from the very beginning.

It was not, so trying to hold a 2nd one after the fact is moving the goal posts and dirty tricks. You don't get to hold referendum after referendum until you get the answer you wanted. Thats not how referenda work.

If you do that, I'm going to demand a THIRD referendum.

I had came around to the idea of a second referendum, but then I found this. It’s just a simple reminder of how the eu and it’s supporters actually handle decisions. We’ll ask you your opinion on it but we’re getting what we want regardless of what you actually say. So no, not this time. No to any second referendum.

That's a bald-faced lie. Ireland was "made to vote again" after the concerns expressed by the Irish electorate were dealt with in the Seville Declaration, for instance. Anyone with even a passing familiratity with the Treaty of Nice would know that, which really makes me question Hannan's motives and intellectual honesty. Similarly, the Maastricht Treaty was agreed to by Denmark after their concernes were adressed and exceptions added for Denmark in the Edinburgh Agreement of 1992. The European Constitution never took effect either, and Denmark is still using the Krone[i], not the Euro, after a referendum about joining the Eurozone in 2002 defeated the proposal.

In other words, you're objectively wrong. Again.

Yeah, that's so far into being misleading as to be an outright lie.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.

If there was ever going to be a second referendum, it should have been agreed upon from the very beginning.

It was not, so trying to hold a 2nd one after the fact is moving the goal posts and dirty tricks. You don't get to hold referendum after referendum until you get the answer you wanted. Thats not how referenda work.

If you do that, I'm going to demand a THIRD referendum.

By a 2nd referendum I don't necessarily mean a re-run of the 2016 one. A 2023 "Should the UK rejoin the EU?" would also be 2nd referendum on the subject.


But with something that close, there really should be some sort of follow up to figure out what the gak we actually decided.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

What are the questions for the first and second votes in the 'made to vote again' examples, and were any amendments made to any of the treaties between the two votes?

I presume you have those details to have, because this means absolutely nothing without them. If I have a family vote on whether they want to buy me a Lamborghini for Christmas, they vote no, I make them vote again, and they plump for yes, that seems pretty straightforward. When it turns out that the first referred to a real Lamborghini this Christmas, and the second to a model Lamborghini in 2025...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's a bald-faced lie. Ireland was "made to vote again" after the concerns expressed by the Irish electorate were dealt with in the Seville Declaration, for instance. Anyone with even a passing familiratity with the Treaty of Nice would know that, which really makes me question Hannan's motives and intellectual honesty. Similarly, the Maastricht Treaty was agreed to by Denmark after their concernes were adressed and exceptions added for Denmark in the Edinburgh Agreement of 1992. The European Constitution never took effect either, and Denmark is still using the Krone[i], not the Euro, after a referendum about joining the Eurozone in 2002 defeated the proposal.

In other words, you're objectively wrong. Again.

We see this same argument and counter-argument come up quite frequently, and I think both sides are talking at crosshairs. What one side is saying is that the EU does not accept 'No' for an answer. What the other side hears is that the EU always forces its decisions through undemocratically (and counters accordingly). Both statements are similar, but subtly different and alter whether or not the actions taken by the EU could be perceived as reasonable or not.

I think it is quite evident that that EU has a track record of not accepting the result of referendums. But that's because they also have a track record of modifying and altering legislation after having lost the first time in order to try and make it pass the second; often there are specific concerns that people have, and if legislation can be altered just enough to tip 4-5% of the population into changing their mind, a bill will pass the second time.

I don't consider this to be intrinsically unethical, we have a similar system here in our government. The House of Lords frequently bounces legislation back to be edited before it passes. At the same time however, it leads to a loss of faith in those who do oppose the system that they have any ability to affect it. They know that all the EU will do is focus its efforts on sweet talking a small segment of the population enough to alter the outcome of a second vote, and then running it.

Now it could be argued that democracy rules. If the EU can get 52% approval, they win, and their legislation should be made law. Correspondingly however, it should also be recognised that the second more tailored referendum is something of a unfair advantage to the EU team. Why is it unfair? Because the opposing side to the EU (the ones who won the first time) never get the luxury of a second more targeted referendum if they do lose the first time. The legislation just goes through. You'll note that there are many referendums not mentioned on that list above where the EU won by the skin of its teeth; but no second referendum was tabled to give their opposition a second chance. In other words, one side has to win (at least) twice to win, whereas the other side only needs to win once.

Consequently, Remain voters tend be deadly opposed to another vote. They know that if it comes, the EU will offer a few more minor concessions, and then win. They are correct to perceive it as unfair, but the mandate of democracy insists that it has to be this way. It is simply one of the flaws of the system, the home base advantage of whoever controls the power to propose legislation and referendums. It would be better if that bias/advantage did not exist, but it is difficult to see a way in which one could remove it without creating further tools by which democracy could be undermined.

The country does not have the time and energy for a second referendum in the near future. If there was to be a backing out of Brexit in the next 18 months, it would be done through the constitutional mechanism of a vote in Parliament, which has already been called for on the final "deal".

The battle at the moment is how "hard" a Brexit the anti-EU members of the cabinet (and Tory backwoodsmen) can force on the nation as a whole. That's because they fear a soft Brexit and an interim arrangement will leave the opportunity open to rejoin in a few years.

I should have done my research. How could I have forgetten that Denmark doesn’t use the Euro? I’m going there in January for Christ’s sake.

I could try arguing some of the other points (the EU constitution, Lisbon Treaty and Greece’s bailout) but it’s beyound repair now. I wouldn’t change anyone’s mind anyway. Nobody in here will ever change their minds. It’s all just point scoring.

There is a lot of point scoring, but I'd like to think some of us would change our mind given sufficient evidence.
I'll happily change my mind, but the bar is going to have to be pretty high.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The country does not have the time and energy for a second referendum in the near future.

The country also doesn't have the time and energy for another economic disaster. If things get as bad as predicted, then people will be calling for another referendum very quickly.

And the economy is going to suffer - the government would be publishing the results of all of these studies if they were showing neutral or positive results.

This is probably in the wrong thread, but imagine a situation where a democratic vote was met with violence, the media was taken over by the state, politicians were being charged with sedition for holding a peaceful democratic vote, and the local police were purged of anti-government elements...

If that happened in any other part of the world, the EU would be the first to call for military intervention.

And yet, that is happening in Spain, and the EU are turning a blind eye to it. Kosovo was recognised by EU members, without so much as a vote cast!

Vote for the EU? Those two faced rats? Never! Not if you paid me a million pounds.