EU Referendum Vote - Poll

Drew_TNBD

Bucket said:

I just put the Remain camp back in the lead (67 to 66) and I'm proud of it.

Smugness is not very becoming of you Bucket. Leave that to Emp.

eSully

The morning update for our Poll, sorry @bucket but leave has sneaked back into the lead ... by 1. It's crazy how tight it is across 149 votes.

UnclePsychosis said:

The irony, is, of course, that the kinds of people most likely to be involved in high tech innovation---scientists and people with University degrees---are more likely to back Remain.

They do, and my friend that's an ecologist does as he does not trust the Tories not to rip up every safety net we have right now to protect the environment but when I spoke to him about it that was his only reason for voting remain. I wonder from what I've seen whether their views on this are self-interested. The academic world supports remain not because they necessarily agree with the European Commission or ever closer Union but because it might affect their research funding and ability to work with partners in the EU. Personally I think this again is scaremongering. I could be wrong but there's no way the Government wouldn't replace University funding, the Universities are a huge contributor to the economy. From a collaboration point of view I don't know but yet again, I don't see how it's in anyone's interests to sever ties. And please don't give me some rubbish about students not being able to study here, there are students from all over the world studying here no issue, not just from the EU.

I've said way earlier in this thread I'm veering towards remain on balance but for my vote I want that balance to be found by looking at the whole picture as much as possible rather than a small subset of it, i.e. I'm voting leave cause I don't like immigration (as if a vote for leave will change that), I'm voting remain because of University funding, I'm voting remain because the Guardian told me to and anyone who doesn't is thick etc.

For the majority of us, whichever way you vote you are accepting a trade off, there's going to be parts of the deal we won't like either way.

ICBM

chillidoggy said:

Anyone who thinks immigration isn't a problem needs to get their head out of the sand.

It is a problem, but it's not the numbers - it's the lack of proper planning to move immigrants to other parts of the country, and lack of investment in the infrastructure necessary to support more people, which would benefit everyone.

I totally understand that where you are, there are simply too many immigrants (I have family in Portsmouth, previously Chatham). But elsewhere, especially in Scotland, there aren't enough - Scotland's population is actually falling, which has long-term implications for tax revenue and public service provision.

Allowing immigrants to arrive in the south-east and not giving them enough incentives to move elsewhere is a failure of government, rather than immigration policy.

Drew_TNBD

Taking Scotland as an example, there are many parts of the UK that are just utterly beautiful places. But there are no jobs. My non-Brit friends; one is a camera technician, one is a government aid, one is a freelance graphic designer, one is a freelance footwear designer, etc... etc... the freelancers could work in Scotland, but I'm not sure the other two could.

There are definite questions about infrastructure all around the country, but they've been ignored for decades in favour of cramming as many unskilled workers into places like London and Birmingham as can be.

It's just not sustainable.

Drew_TNBD

UnclePsychosis said:

Emp_Fab;1092988" said:

We are a unique nation.  We have fought, and won, two world wars.  We have invented and discovered logarithms, submarines, the steam engine, the plough, incandescent lighting, electromagnets, computers, pedal bikes, Boolean algebra, hypodermic syringes, steel alloys, traffic lights, the telephone, electroluminescence, television, the jet engine, cats eyes, carbon fibre, cash machines, the WWW, electricity, gas turbines, radar, torpedos, the sextant, DNA, spiral galaxies, airliners, supersonic airliners, the propeller, fingerprinting, MRI scanners, plastic and music festivals - to name a small selection.

Remind me again what we need to be in a club run with mainland Europe, run by unelected officials for ?

The irony, is, of course, that the kinds of people most likely to be involved in high tech innovation---scientists and people with University degrees---are more likely to back Remain.

And you're bringing in the two *world* wars as a great example of Britain going it alone? Blimey, that's a stretch and a half.

Not really an irony. We already know that specialized well educated people have no common sense at all

UnclePsychosis

Where's the excess funding for Universities coming from? According to Vote Leave we're spending the EU money on the NHS instead.

The logic people have around this is really weird.

Voters/Brexiters-"tell us a benefit of being in the EU"

Universities-"we get, access to pan-European research, freedom for Academics and students, funding, it helps us remain world leaders"

Voters/Brexiters- "you're only saying that because you benefit from the EU".

Umm, yeah? That's the point.

It's quite hilarious watching everyone who benefits from the EU being told "yeah, but you benefit from the EU so don't get a say in whether its a good thing".

Drew_TNBD

Another reason to vote leave:
https://www.allthink.com/1304245

Today Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft signed a pledge with the European Union to remove "hate speech" from their websites within 24 hours.

Allthink did not sign this agreement. Allthink is a social network that seeks to bring free speech to the unfree world, not the other way around.

We believe in free speech. We believe each individual is responsible for their own feelings. We believe that sometimes the truth is offensive. We believe in a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas are debunked, not cast into the shadows. We believe the definitions of "hate" are arbitrary and capricious. We believe that it is impossible to separate "hate" speech from "legitimate" speech without injecting political bias into the process. We believe that the EU and its constituent governments have and will use the cover of "hate speech" to push a self-serving political agenda. We believe that American tech companies should not sell their users' freedoms to inflate foreign government approval ratings.

If you have something thoughtful to say, you can say it freely on Allthink. Join Newsish, Cathy Young, James Lindsay, Ahnaf Kalam, Michelle Catlin, and many more.

Want to criticise feminism? BANNED. Want to criticise Labour or the Tories? BANNED. Want to criticise the way charities embezzle funds? BANNED. Want to express your atheistic thoughts on religion that hundreds of years ago would've got you killed? BANNED. Want to satirically worship the devil to illustrate some petty point or other? BANNED.

Yeah. EU. Freedom. Riiiiiight.

eSully

UnclePsychosis said:

Where's the excess funding for Universities coming from? According to Vote Leave we're spending the EU money on the NHS instead.

The logic people have around this is really weird.

Voters/Brexiters-"tell us a benefit of being in the EU"

Universities-"we get, access to pan-European research, freedom for Academics and students, funding, it helps us remain world leaders"

Voters/Brexiters- "you're only saying that because you benefit from the EU".

Umm, yeah? That's the point.

It's quite hilarious watching everyone who benefits from the EU being told "yeah, but you benefit from the EU so don't get a say in whether its a good thing".

If that was directed at me then I never claimed their opinion wasn't valid, I said we should all make our decision based on all aspects of the campaigns, not one subset. I've also stated, on balance, I'll probably vote remain but unlike you I can see merit to some of the arguments from both sides.

So, what do you believe will happen if we vote leave? I don't know where it was quoted that every penny gained from not paying into the EU would be directed to the NHS but I don't believe that would be the case. It's overwhelmingly in British interests to have successful research lead Universities so no, I do not believe the British government will leave the Universities rot and not replace research funding. I also believe that outside the EU the Universities will still work with other EU institutions and probably still receive limited EU funding where they are working in collaboration with other EU institutions, to my knowledge the Swiss Universities do (and before you link to it, yes I am aware their funding was cut recently due to limitations on free movement). I'm not saying it would be an easy transition but I'm sceptical of suggestions it can't or won't be done in the case of a leave vote.

Phil_aka_Pip

Gassage said:

How anyone with half a brain can even consider leaving is beyond me. Truly.

Yep. It takes a full quota of brain cells to realise that Leaving is the best thing to to. Those with less than the full complement are as you say unlikely to reach the right conclusion

chillidoggy

ICBM said:

chillidoggy said:

Anyone who thinks immigration isn't a problem needs to get their head out of the sand.

It is a problem, but it's not the numbers - it's the lack of proper planning to move immigrants to other parts of the country, and lack of investment in the infrastructure necessary to support more people, which would benefit everyone.

I totally understand that where you are, there are simply too many immigrants (I have family in Portsmouth, previously Chatham). But elsewhere, especially in Scotland, there aren't enough - Scotland's population is actually falling, which has long-term implications for tax revenue and public service provision.

Allowing immigrants to arrive in the south-east and not giving them enough incentives to move elsewhere is a failure of government, rather than immigration policy.

What I should have said in my admittedly bald statement is that immigration IS a real problem in many areas due precisely to that which you suggest - overwhelming numbers. It's a real problem in my area, and local people are incensed about it. Everyone I speak to here is opposed to the levels of immigration, and don't want any more immigrants arriving on their doorsteps. And because of the depth of feeling of such groups, that's where the 'Out' votes are going to come from. They are the people most likely to get off their arses and go to the polling stations.

ICBM

chillidoggy said:

What I should have said in my admittedly bald statement is that immigration IS a real problem in many areas due precisely to that which you suggest - overwhelming numbers. It's a real problem in my area, and local people are incensed about it. Everyone I speak to here is opposed to the levels of immigration, and don't want any more immigrants arriving on their doorsteps.

Absolutely agreed, and rightly.

It worries me that the politicians - who must know the bigger picture - allow the focus to be on the raw numbers, and are not making any attempt to properly deal with the problem. It's almost as if they *want* to stir up anti-immigration anger...

chillidoggy

ICBM said:

chillidoggy said:

What I should have said in my admittedly bald statement is that immigration IS a real problem in many areas due precisely to that which you suggest - overwhelming numbers. It's a real problem in my area, and local people are incensed about it. Everyone I speak to here is opposed to the levels of immigration, and don't want any more immigrants arriving on their doorsteps.

Absolutely agreed, and rightly.

It worries me that the politicians - who must know the bigger picture - allow the focus to be on the raw numbers, and are not making any attempt to properly deal with the problem. It's almost as if they *want* to stir up anti-immigration anger...

There's been no coherent policies to deal with the levels of immigration for years. The systems, such as they are, weren't designed to cope with the influx.

On a separate note, to me it's an identical problem with the EU constitution: It doesn't take into account wildly varying influences, it wasn't designed that way. Could anyone have foreseen the issues we face today? I don't think so.

If it is to survive, the EU needs reform. 'Not fit for purpose' is the phrase that springs to mind. Had Cameron come back home having agreed some positive changes, I don't believe we would be so divided right now. As it is, the EU is stumbling in the dark towards a cliff-top of its own making. If the UK votes to leave, I am sure others will follow.

UnclePsychosis

@esully it was a general remark, not particularly directed at anyone.

The money going to the NHS thing comes from the Vote Leave campaign. Their "battle bus" has a giant slogan implying we can spend an extra £350m a week on the NHS on it. It's a horrific piece of dishonesty.

Your last remark- that it won't be easy- is an interesting one. There's a difference between saying you shouldn't do something and saying you can't do something. Clearly the UK *could* survive in the case of Brexit. The point is that it would be *better* if we didnt. Scottish Nationalists don't seem to understand this either. (Again, a general remark).

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

@esully it was a general remark, not particularly directed at anyone.

The money going to the NHS thing comes from the Vote Leave campaign. Their "battle bus" has a giant slogan implying we can spend an extra £350m a week on the NHS on it. It's a horrific piece of dishonesty.

Your last remark- that it won't be easy- is an interesting one. There's a difference between saying you shouldn't do something and saying you can't do something. Clearly the UK *could* survive in the case of Brexit. The point is that it would be *better* if we didnt. Scottish Nationalists don't seem to understand this either. (Again, a general remark).

Why is it dishonest? We could easy spend that - it's doubtful we would but that's politics.

ICBM

It's dishonest because it implies that the money we send to the EU - which itself is an exaggerated figure - would all be spent on the NHS if we leave. That is at the very least deliberately misleading, and has been stated as such by the UK Statistics Authority.

But typically, the Leave campaign continue to use it despite being told they shouldn't be doing. They simply will not stop peddling the same untruths even after they've been exposed. Repeat a lie often enough...

menamestom

eSully said:

For the majority of us, whichever way you vote you are accepting a trade off, there's going to be parts of the deal we won't like either way.

This is it for me.  I'm sceptical of anybody that is overwhelmingly pro either camp as all the arguments against their stance are brushed under the carpet.  The truth of it is, whatever the positives for either staying or leaving nobody really knows what the outcome will be, the whole thing is a stick or twist scenario in one big global game of poker that the UK has called. 

I'm currently 70% for staying.  I've swayed slightly towards leave, having try to read a bit more and not be influenced too much against the leave campaign by many of the people around me (I'm hearing lot's of 'Make Britain Great Again' rhetoric, and overwhelmingly outdated views on immigration).  But that shouldn't distract from the fact leaving would lead to greater freedom and opportunities for the country to make more of it's own massive GDP.

What puts me off leaving, is the risk to the economy and the countries, institutions and large companies that are advising against it (China and the US being the big ones), but they have their own agendas and their stances are largely the result of how it will affect themselves in the global power jostle rather than what would be good for the UK.

Anyway, interesting poll.  I think this could well go to the wire.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:Why is it dishonest? We could easy spend that - it's doubtful we would but that's politics.

Because it came out of a politician's mouth, as the old joke goes. 

Take the Leave campaign broadcast last night. It clearly pushed the concept of massive extra spending on the NHS to the electorate as they have done throughout. 

But it's all in the wording. "Could be spent". Might be. Erm, could do... and that's the Leave way this week. No promises. Just tiny hints of "We might do this for you", whether it's spending on the NHS or Gove postulating on how a Leave win could mean dropping VAT on fuel saving hardworking people £60 measly quid a year (very generous from a man who voted in favour of raising VAT from 15% to 17.5% to 20% and for an increase in insurance premium tax and ignoring the pertinent fact that it was the Conservatives who introduced it in the first place). Blaming the EU for a Conservative decision is dishonest. 

http://i.imgur.com/H5mxgBj.jpg

Fretwired

ICBM said:

It's dishonest because it implies that the money we send to the EU - which itself is an exaggerated figure - would all be spent on the NHS if we leave. That is at the very least deliberately misleading, and has been stated as such by the UK Statistics Authority.

But typically, the Leave campaign continue to use it despite being told they shouldn't be doing. They simply will not stop peddling the same untruths even after they've been exposed. Repeat a lie often enough...

The £350 million is the gross figure the UK is required to pay under EU rules. We then get a rebate and other monies, although the EU dictates how those monies are spent. Technically the UK should contribute 1 per cent of GDP and this could be imposed on us at any time. The rebate is not part of any EU Treaty. The level of the UK rebate is decided every seven years, as part of the EU's long-term budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is negotiated by the EU leaders.

The long-term budget determines EU spending levels and priorities and it has to be approved unanimously by all 28 EU leaders. Last time, as part of the 2014-2020 budget negotiations, the UK rebate was preserved. It will remain in place in the current form until 2020.

When the EU starts to negotiate the next MFF, the rebate will certainly be on the table again. Many other EU countries would like to see it scrapped or reduced. The UK could theoretically use its veto to block any move but it's likely the veto will be removed as well.

Leave may be bending the truth, but they are nothing compared to the fear and shame faced lies of the Remain Group. War in Europe. Cameron should resign for making comments like that - disgraceful.

Fortheloveofguitar

Heartfeltdawn;1093341" said:

Fretwired said:Why is it dishonest? We could easy spend that - it's doubtful we would but that's politics.Because it came out of a politician's mouth, as the old joke goes. 

Take the Leave campaign broadcast last night. It clearly pushed the concept of massive extra spending on the NHS to the electorate as they have done throughout. 

But it's all in the wording. "Could be spent". Might be. Erm, could do... and that's the Leave way this week. No promises. Just tiny hints of "We might do this for you", whether it's spending on the NHS or Gove postulating on how a Leave win could mean dropping VAT on fuel saving hardworking people £60 measly quid a year (very generous from a man who voted in favour of raising VAT from 15% to 17.5% to 20% and for an increase in insurance premium tax and ignoring the pertinent fact that it was the Conservatives who introduced it in the first place). Blaming the EU for a Conservative decision is dishonest. 



http://i.imgur.com/H5mxgBj.jpg

Of course it's all could be and might be

They can't guarantee it as they're not in government. They can only point out what could be done with the money which is what they've done throughout

They've never claimed this will 100% happen if we vote to leave only the possibilities of what could be done with the money

When they start claiming that it's a given which they haven't then there's an argument here

Heartfeltdawn

Fortheloveofguitar said:

Of course it's all could be and might be

They can't guarantee it as they're not in government. They can only point out what could be done with the money which is what they've done throughout

They've never claimed this will 100% happen if we vote to leave only the possibilities of what could be done with the money

When they start claiming that it's a given which they haven't then there's an argument here

There is an argument here and I'm making it. 

When a Tory-led Leave group uses the NHS in this way, throwing montages of old women in hospitals coupled with erotic snippets about how we could spend this on a new hospital each week and all the rest, I think it's completely dishonest when you put it up against the polices those same Tory Leavers voted in favour of. 

Obviously nobody can make promises. So let's go crazy. Let's have campaigns saying we could spend it on unicorn horns and fairy wings for everyone. It'd be a lot less distasteful than the above campaign broadcast.