Yep. Latest polls showing Leave on 47% and Remain on 43%
Funny how the BBC and ITV have declined to commission exit polls. Which is basically unprecedented in modern times. All the easier to fiddle the results when "counting" takes place. Which is why, I believe, that MSM polls have been reporting them as "neck and neck". Far easier to fiddle the results than if one side or another is showing a significant lead in the polls.
What the Remain side needs right now is a noisy, right-wing-extremist security scare....oh..wait a minute
EU membership referendum debate thread
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Little John
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eu ... 16-7699714clv101 wrote:What poll is that? There were three yesterday; Survation, Surveymonkey and ORB none with those numbers?Little John wrote:Yep. Latest polls showing Leave on 47% and Remain on 43%
There are other sources
-
Little John
Is there a typo in your post, none of the recent polls talk of 47% Leave, 43% Remain.Little John wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eu ... 16-7699714clv101 wrote:What poll is that? There were three yesterday; Survation, Surveymonkey and ORB none with those numbers?Little John wrote:Yep. Latest polls showing Leave on 47% and Remain on 43%
There are other sources
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
When they get in they have to place their bets in the right direction. They are using the Brexit polls to tell them which way to bet. Leave means sell short. Remain means buy long.woodburner wrote:I didn't think traders minded whether markets went up or down, as long as they got in before it moved they make money either way. It's the punters that put money in thinking it is based on something real instead of the gambling that it really is, who get their fingers burnt. The maxim is if you can't afford to lose it, don't do it.vtsnowedin wrote:..............
It has been interesting to watch the USA stock market go up and down these last few days based on your poll figures . If leave is ahead the market goes down and as Remain pulled ahead the market went back up. Apparently the Wall street wonks think a a leave result would be bad for business. ............
There is a good chance the market will make a response one way or the other in the day or two after the vote and that temporary blip is what they hope to cash in on.
I would think a separate Britain would do just as much business with the USA as one tied to the rest of Europe so think the long term effects on American stocks will be negligible. If the vote goes leave then the rules will be changing and that uncertainty about what the new rules will be will be the cause of the temporary nervousness.
-
Little John
The video is updated regularly in that site as polls come in, it may have changed, I have just checked and it reads currently as 45 and 43 in favour of leave on the latest poll and 47 43 averaged over 7 days in favour of leaveclv101 wrote:Is there a typo in your post, none of the recent polls talk of 47% Leave, 43% Remain.Little John wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eu ... 16-7699714clv101 wrote: What poll is that? There were three yesterday; Survation, Surveymonkey and ORB none with those numbers?
There are other sources
Over the course of the campaign people from both sides have made the statement "This is a once in [a generation/many years/lifetime/insert long period of choice here] decision" or something along those lines. Is it true? What are the rules on this and who decides? I know Donald Tusk said if we voted out, that is it, out means out but what real authority does he have? Is he deriving that from something hardwired into EU law?
-
Little John
He is deriving that from the fact the next step toward integration is an EU Army and EU police force. At which point, the gloves come off, and the reality of loss of sovereignty becomes all too clear for any EU state that steps out of line. We saw the beginnings of it with Greece and Italy.oobers wrote:Over the course of the campaign people from both sides have made the statement "This is a once in [a generation/many years/lifetime/insert long period of choice here] decision" or something along those lines. Is it true? What are the rules on this and who decides? I know Donald Tusk said if we voted out, that is it, out means out but what real authority does he have? Is he deriving that from something hardwired into EU law?
I have decided to vote Leave. Here is my thought process. Please offer a critique. I’m still willing to change my mind.
It is now thought that we have a mere decade to decarbonise our global economy if we are to keep global temperatures within safe limits.
The EU is essentially a massive trading bloc that has the main aim of achieving economic growth.
Carbon emissions cannot be decoupled from economic growth.
EU legislation on emissions exists to provide some check on emissions but is really only there to enable continued economic activity that does not unfairly treat any member states.
TTIP is about achieving more economic growth by enabling access to new markets for all parties. It is more likely to proceed at EU level than at individual state level because 1) the size of the trading bloc is key to the US and 2) member states of the EU are more likely to fall in line with each other/made to fall in line than non member countries who can better assert the will of their citizens
Climate change should be dealt with at a global and local scale. We need global agreement on the destination and local agreement on the route and method of travel. The EU provides neither. As a trading bloc, it is competing with other trading blocs and so hampers efforts. I know one could argue that the EU could gain competitive advantage by going all out for support of low carbon industries and so be a force for good but I see no evidence of that happening. I think that is more likely to happen at a national level if we have the will to vote in a government with that agenda (I realise that is a big if)
From a peak oil perspective, we are better off as a separate nation, operating government and economic activity at a smaller and more local level, appropriate to our localities.
It is now thought that we have a mere decade to decarbonise our global economy if we are to keep global temperatures within safe limits.
The EU is essentially a massive trading bloc that has the main aim of achieving economic growth.
Carbon emissions cannot be decoupled from economic growth.
EU legislation on emissions exists to provide some check on emissions but is really only there to enable continued economic activity that does not unfairly treat any member states.
TTIP is about achieving more economic growth by enabling access to new markets for all parties. It is more likely to proceed at EU level than at individual state level because 1) the size of the trading bloc is key to the US and 2) member states of the EU are more likely to fall in line with each other/made to fall in line than non member countries who can better assert the will of their citizens
Climate change should be dealt with at a global and local scale. We need global agreement on the destination and local agreement on the route and method of travel. The EU provides neither. As a trading bloc, it is competing with other trading blocs and so hampers efforts. I know one could argue that the EU could gain competitive advantage by going all out for support of low carbon industries and so be a force for good but I see no evidence of that happening. I think that is more likely to happen at a national level if we have the will to vote in a government with that agenda (I realise that is a big if)
From a peak oil perspective, we are better off as a separate nation, operating government and economic activity at a smaller and more local level, appropriate to our localities.
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
The out for ever thing is a negotiating threat. More scare tactics. When we vote out all the rules will change and they'll start on different threats/bribes according to what they want us to do.
The Irish had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I think it was, which was chucked out so the EU made them vote again. Different tactics for the second vote and the Irish toed the line.
They are politicians and will say whatever they think is best at the time.
The Irish had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I think it was, which was chucked out so the EU made them vote again. Different tactics for the second vote and the Irish toed the line.
They are politicians and will say whatever they think is best at the time.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
Most key environmental issues are international and we need to engage with other countries to respond to them.oobers wrote:From a peak oil perspective, we are better off as a separate nation, operating government and economic activity at a smaller and more local level, appropriate to our localities.
-
Little John
False dichotomyjohnhemming2 wrote:Most key environmental issues are international and we need to engage with other countries to respond to them.oobers wrote:From a peak oil perspective, we are better off as a separate nation, operating government and economic activity at a smaller and more local level, appropriate to our localities.
Who says we wont engage with other countries?
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01