SURVEY: Brexit, do you support it?

[dick dasterdly]

TVF posters can opine on the Brexit/ Bremain conundrum (and which we have done) ad infinitum.

The more erudite posters can trot out Spectator and Economist opinions, "research" and

"statistics" (and we know that they follow "lies" and "damned lies") as much as they want.

The great and good, eminent persons and august bodies can also contribute for all they

are worth.

Are any of them having an impact on where it counts: Mrs Higgins who lives at number 43

down the road; i.e. "Joe Public", the man in the street? Because that is where this issue

will be finally resolved on 23rd June this year.

I have my doubts.

Oh good, we've added another insult - erudite posters as opposed to only the uneducated etc. etc. that prefer to leave the UK .

And still no actual facts, as its all down to opinion and actual facts are just lies, damned lies and statistics - depending on which side of the fence is being argued.

I have posted several links to useful information

If you won't read them, then, if the cap fits.....

Thanks for the derogatory accusation.

Do you genuinely not realise that directing venom at others is only likely to produce an antagonistic viewpoint??

[Grouse]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is that arguments from both sides are nothing other than opinion and fear mongering.

Its a shame, but it becomes more obvious that there is no way of knowing whether or not leaving the EU will benefit or harm the 'average' citizen. (I know it should be 'subject' rather than citizen - before anyone uses this to denigrate me as an uneducated, illiterate.)

The only thing we can look at factually is the current position - and as every fact is argued by the other side as wrong, this becomes v difficult too unless someone is prepared to spend MANY hours (days?) trawling through all the available info .

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21697253-britain-has-best-both-worlds-ins-and-outs

This is a portal to lots of useful info from The Economist. Trustworthy

I did look that up, but was only allowed access to one 'article' before membership was demanded.

The one article I was able to read had something in it that made me laugh (almost) out loud as it was so obviously an establishment type argument. Wish I could remember what it was, but I can't .

Whilst working, the Economist was part of 'everyday' reading, and offered valuable insights - but often biased towards the financial sector. Typing that reminds me - it was something about the EU limiting bank bonuses (after the banks had brought so many countries to their knees) and how the UK was determined not to limit these bonuses.

Sign up for free and get to access a limited number of articles each week (your choice)

The bonuses issue was a failed attempt to reduce the strength of the city. Cameron had some success in defeating that gambit

[dick dasterdly]

TVF posters can opine on the Brexit/ Bremain conundrum (and which we have done) ad infinitum.

The more erudite posters can trot out Spectator and Economist opinions, "research" and

"statistics" (and we know that they follow "lies" and "damned lies") as much as they want.

The great and good, eminent persons and august bodies can also contribute for all they

are worth.

Are any of them having an impact on where it counts: Mrs Higgins who lives at number 43

down the road; i.e. "Joe Public", the man in the street? Because that is where this issue

will be finally resolved on 23rd June this year.

I have my doubts.

Yes, this is very real issue. The whole point of a parliamentary democracy is that we appoint members to act in our best interests

Referendums undermine this and the great unwashed can hold sway over a more knowledgeable minority

Churchill said that if you want the best reason why universal suffrage is a bad idea, just have a 5 minute conversation with an average voter

No way to put that politely

And we all agree with that right up until the point the elected party fails to deliver on their promises.

The other problem is that whilst we ALL (which should tell you something...) agree that the 'average' voter is as thick as two short planks - we all agree with them until they disagree with our POV .

[Grouse]

TVF posters can opine on the Brexit/ Bremain conundrum (and which we have done) ad infinitum.

The more erudite posters can trot out Spectator and Economist opinions, "research" and

"statistics" (and we know that they follow "lies" and "damned lies") as much as they want.

The great and good, eminent persons and august bodies can also contribute for all they

are worth.

Are any of them having an impact on where it counts: Mrs Higgins who lives at number 43

down the road; i.e. "Joe Public", the man in the street? Because that is where this issue

will be finally resolved on 23rd June this year.

I have my doubts.

Yes, this is very real issue. The whole point of a parliamentary democracy is that we appoint members to act in our best interests

Referendums undermine this and the great unwashed can hold sway over a more knowledgeable minority

Churchill said that if you want the best reason why universal suffrage is a bad idea, just have a 5 minute conversation with an average voter

No way to put that politely

And we all agree with that right up until the point the elected party fails to deliver on their promises.

The other problem is that whilst we ALL (which should tell you something...) agree that the 'average' voter is as thick as two short planks - we all agree with them until they disagree with our POV .

Ha ha' Roger that!

[dick dasterdly]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is that arguments from both sides are nothing other than opinion and fear mongering.

Its a shame, but it becomes more obvious that there is no way of knowing whether or not leaving the EU will benefit or harm the 'average' citizen. (I know it should be 'subject' rather than citizen - before anyone uses this to denigrate me as an uneducated, illiterate.)

The only thing we can look at factually is the current position - and as every fact is argued by the other side as wrong, this becomes v difficult too unless someone is prepared to spend MANY hours (days?) trawling through all the available info .

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21697253-britain-has-best-both-worlds-ins-and-outs

This is a portal to lots of useful info from The Economist. Trustworthy

I did look that up, but was only allowed access to one 'article' before membership was demanded.

The one article I was able to read had something in it that made me laugh (almost) out loud as it was so obviously an establishment type argument. Wish I could remember what it was, but I can't .

Whilst working, the Economist was part of 'everyday' reading, and offered valuable insights - but often biased towards the financial sector. Typing that reminds me - it was something about the EU limiting bank bonuses (after the banks had brought so many countries to their knees) and how the UK was determined not to limit these bonuses.

Sign up for free and get to access a limited number of articles each week (your choice)

The bonuses issue was a failed attempt to reduce the strength of the city. Cameron had some success in defeating that gambit

That's your opinion, whereas mine is that the banks needed to have their bonuses limited in view of the damage they had caused (amongst other good reasons for limiting their frequent OTT bonuses).

[cloudhopper]

I predict Brexit will fail and the sheep will continue to be shorn. Until the EU flies apart anyway.

[Grouse]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is that arguments from both sides are nothing other than opinion and fear mongering.

Its a shame, but it becomes more obvious that there is no way of knowing whether or not leaving the EU will benefit or harm the 'average' citizen. (I know it should be 'subject' rather than citizen - before anyone uses this to denigrate me as an uneducated, illiterate.)

The only thing we can look at factually is the current position - and as every fact is argued by the other side as wrong, this becomes v difficult too unless someone is prepared to spend MANY hours (days?) trawling through all the available info .

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21697253-britain-has-best-both-worlds-ins-and-outs

This is a portal to lots of useful info from The Economist. Trustworthy

I did look that up, but was only allowed access to one 'article' before membership was demanded.

The one article I was able to read had something in it that made me laugh (almost) out loud as it was so obviously an establishment type argument. Wish I could remember what it was, but I can't .

Whilst working, the Economist was part of 'everyday' reading, and offered valuable insights - but often biased towards the financial sector. Typing that reminds me - it was something about the EU limiting bank bonuses (after the banks had brought so many countries to their knees) and how the UK was determined not to limit these bonuses.

Sign up for free and get to access a limited number of articles each week (your choice)

The bonuses issue was a failed attempt to reduce the strength of the city. Cameron had some success in defeating that gambit

That's your opinion, whereas mine is that the banks needed to have their bonuses limited in view of the damage they had caused (amongst other good reasons for limiting their frequent OTT bonuses).

I agree with you

But that was not the aim of the EU effort. It was to reduce the power of the city particularly relative to Frankfurt.

Personally, I would hit these chaps with windfall taxes for the exchequer

[dick dasterdly]

You may well be right - but again its an 'argument' dependent on opinion, not facts. The only 'fact' is that the UK fought to protect bankers' bonuses.

But again, this could be because they were sure that said (incompetent) bankers would leave the UK if their bonuses were restricted? I'm not sure how the restriction would minimise the UK as the EU financial centre? The bankers affected weren't about to rush off to Frankfurt which had agreed to the rules.

[Grouse]

You may well be right - but again its an 'argument' dependent on opinion, not facts. The only 'fact' is that the UK fought to protect bankers' bonuses.

But again, this could be because they were sure that said (incompetent) bankers would leave the UK if their bonuses were restricted? I'm not sure how the restriction would minimise the UK as the EU financial centre? The bankers affected weren't about to rush off to Frankfurt which had agreed to the rules.

Zurich was a possible I understand. But the issue was (and is) whether American banks would stay. One thing is for sure, if we leave the EU, the tables would be tilted against London

[dick dasterdly]

You may well be right - but again its an 'argument' dependent on opinion, not facts. The only 'fact' is that the UK fought to protect bankers' bonuses.

But again, this could be because they were sure that said (incompetent) bankers would leave the UK if their bonuses were restricted? I'm not sure how the restriction would minimise the UK as the EU financial centre? The bankers affected weren't about to rush off to Frankfurt which had agreed to the rules.

Zurich was a possible I understand. But the issue was (and is) whether American banks would stay. One thing is for sure, if we leave the EU, the tables would be tilted against London

And that's another opinion.

I don't mean to be argumentative - but the lack of genuine facts is why its so hard to determine whether the vote should be leave or stay.

My own personal opinion is that ideally the EU should reform itself in various ways. But this is not about to happen because of power/money issues for the people/countries and corporations involved.

Which brings us back to square one....

[Grouse]

You may well be right - but again its an 'argument' dependent on opinion, not facts. The only 'fact' is that the UK fought to protect bankers' bonuses.

But again, this could be because they were sure that said (incompetent) bankers would leave the UK if their bonuses were restricted? I'm not sure how the restriction would minimise the UK as the EU financial centre? The bankers affected weren't about to rush off to Frankfurt which had agreed to the rules.

Zurich was a possible I understand. But the issue was (and is) whether American banks would stay. One thing is for sure, if we leave the EU, the tables would be tilted against London

And that's another opinion.

I don't mean to be argumentative - but the lack of genuine facts is why its so hard to determine whether the vote should be leave or stay.

My own personal opinion is that ideally the EU should reform itself in various ways. But this is not about to happen because of power/money issues for the people/countries and corporations involved.

Which brings us back to square one....

Can't argue with that

But at least it's a sensible discussion and that's a pleasant change ?

[billd766]

TVF posters can opine on the Brexit/ Bremain conundrum (and which we have done) ad infinitum.

The more erudite posters can trot out Spectator and Economist opinions, "research" and

"statistics" (and we know that they follow "lies" and "damned lies") as much as they want.

The great and good, eminent persons and august bodies can also contribute for all they

are worth.

Are any of them having an impact on where it counts: Mrs Higgins who lives at number 43

down the road; i.e. "Joe Public", the man in the street? Because that is where this issue

will be finally resolved on 23rd June this year.

I have my doubts.

Oh good, we've added another insult - erudite posters as opposed to only the uneducated etc. etc. that prefer to leave the UK .

And still no actual facts, as its all down to opinion and actual facts are just lies, damned lies and statistics - depending on which side of the fence is being argued.

I have posted several links to useful information

If you won't read them, then, if the cap fits.....

How arrogant.

You obviously believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you should not have the right to their own opinion or be allowed to vote.

I don't agree with anything much that you have posted simply because you only post things in favour of remaining and rubbish anyone who disagrees with you.

I certainly have a vote and my vote will be to leave.

You may have a vote and if you do you will vote to remain.

However we each have only one vote so you and I will nullify each other despite what anyone else votes.

[Grouse]

TVF posters can opine on the Brexit/ Bremain conundrum (and which we have done) ad infinitum.

The more erudite posters can trot out Spectator and Economist opinions, "research" and

"statistics" (and we know that they follow "lies" and "damned lies") as much as they want.

The great and good, eminent persons and august bodies can also contribute for all they

are worth.

Are any of them having an impact on where it counts: Mrs Higgins who lives at number 43

down the road; i.e. "Joe Public", the man in the street? Because that is where this issue

will be finally resolved on 23rd June this year.

I have my doubts.

Oh good, we've added another insult - erudite posters as opposed to only the uneducated etc. etc. that prefer to leave the UK .

And still no actual facts, as its all down to opinion and actual facts are just lies, damned lies and statistics - depending on which side of the fence is being argued.

I have posted several links to useful information

If you won't read them, then, if the cap fits.....

How arrogant.

You obviously believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you should not have the right to their own opinion or be allowed to vote.

I don't agree with anything much that you have posted simply because you only post things in favour of remaining and rubbish anyone who disagrees with you.

I certainly have a vote and my vote will be to leave.

You may have a vote and if you do you will vote to remain.

However we each have only one vote so you and I will nullify each other despite what anyone else votes.

Oh, I can be arrogant to the point of twittery

The point is that I am pretty well read anyway and have really researched the matter

I have also lived and worked in several European countries

If that makes me arrogant, so be it ?

[Cook my sock]

There's still time for a swing either way, it's only April.

It's more about a leadership contest than about the good of the country IMO

[Grouse]

There's still time for a swing either way, it's only April.

It's more about a leadership contest than about the good of the country IMO

Comment of the day!

[rogeroc]

On a very straightforward level,the UK is still fighting it's way out of recession. As such surely not a great idea to be coming out now (if ever).

The UK went into a recession (like many other economies) a long time ago. This is neither an argument for leaving or staying IMO.

DD - You turned around my comment on recession. I think you will agree that it is factual that the UK is still in an economic recovery. Do you really believe that changing the whole scenario of trading and finance in the UK would have no affect on the current economic stability? You were asking for something more tangible in the in / out debate, you got it and then dismissed it as irrelevant. My view is that you are searching too hard for facts, sometimes common sense has to prevail.

[allanos]

I rather like the comment by rogeroc above, and an EU exit may indeed contribute to a more lengthy egress period from the

current recessionary times which the United Kingdom (and many others) finds itself in.

However, my own opinion is that this, in itself, should not detract from the IN/OUT argument. At some stage, the

recession will be put behind and Britain will go forward, in or out of the EU. If it should take somewhat longer, by being

OUT, then bite the bullet, and move forward.

Therefore, for the above reason, I would not cite it as some kind of pivotal point for for staying in or leaving the EU.

[nontabury]

You may well be right - but again its an 'argument' dependent on opinion, not facts. The only 'fact' is that the UK fought to protect bankers' bonuses.

But again, this could be because they were sure that said (incompetent) bankers would leave the UK if their bonuses were restricted? I'm not sure how the restriction would minimise the UK as the EU financial centre? The bankers affected weren't about to rush off to Frankfurt which had agreed to the rules.

Zurich was a possible I understand. But the issue was (and is) whether American banks would stay. One thing is for sure, if we leave the EU, the tables would be tilted against London

And that's another opinion.

I don't mean to be argumentative - but the lack of genuine facts is why its so hard to determine whether the vote should be leave or stay.

My own personal opinion is that ideally the EU should reform itself in various ways. But this is not about to happen because of power/money issues for the people/countries and corporations involved.

Which brings us back to square one....

Unfortunately I cannot see the EU changing.

[chiang mai]

Not to sidetrack too far but it seems to me that no matter which way the vote goes, now is not a bad time for expats in Thailand to get out of GBP. At 50.60 currently it's unlikely to improve much if the vote is to Remain. But if the vote is to Brexit there's a high risk the value of the Pound will fall hence it may be a while before it gets back to its current levels and that will hurt many for living expenses.

[Kwasaki]

What time is the next crystal ball reading for the UK pound value.

[chiang mai]

What time is the next crystal ball reading for the UK pound value.

4 pm EST Monday, PM me for ticket prices.

[sandyf]

UK: Latest UK Brexit polls...

UK: Latest UK Brexit pollsPollster              Remain  Leave  undecided          sample--------------------------------------------------------------Opinium       Apr-30      42     41         17ORB           Apr-30      49     51                        800YouGov        Apr-28      42     41         13Survation     Apr-28      45     38         17ICM           Apr-27      44     46         10  onlineORB           Apr-26      51     46                        800ComRes        Apr-20      51     40          9Ipsos Mori    Apr-19      49     39         12ORB           Apr-18      52     43                        800ICM           Apr-17      48     41              phoneICM           Apr-17      43     44             onlineComres        Apr-17      45     38         17YouGov        Apr-15      40     39         21            3370

Source: Market News International (MNI) – A Deutsche Börse company

2. May 2016 03:30:06

[cumgranosalum]

What time is the next crystal ball reading for the UK pound value.

I think you'll find they use a little more scientific methods than crystal balls - but the naivety of some brexiteers might lead them to think that a crystal ball is taken seriously by some.

[cumgranosalum]

A lot of polls have at least some bias to their origins - also the question asked and sample type/size is relevant.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/30/referendum-poll-boost-remain-campaign-economic-argument

the most frightening thing is that in and out are about the same - with 13% "undecided" - I would have thought that if they haven't decided by now there is something very wrong with their thought processes. This means that the future of the UK is in the hands of a minority group of ditherers, haverers and waverers.

i guess if they can't work that out, maybe come the day, they won't be able to find the polling station either?

[cumgranosalum]

You may well be right - but again its an 'argument' dependent on opinion, not facts. The only 'fact' is that the UK fought to protect bankers' bonuses.

But again, this could be because they were sure that said (incompetent) bankers would leave the UK if their bonuses were restricted? I'm not sure how the restriction would minimise the UK as the EU financial centre? The bankers affected weren't about to rush off to Frankfurt which had agreed to the rules.

Zurich was a possible I understand. But the issue was (and is) whether American banks would stay. One thing is for sure, if we leave the EU, the tables would be tilted against London

And that's another opinion.

I don't mean to be argumentative - but the lack of genuine facts is why its so hard to determine whether the vote should be leave or stay.

My own personal opinion is that ideally the EU should reform itself in various ways. But this is not about to happen because of power/money issues for the people/countries and corporations involved.

Which brings us back to square one....

Unfortunately I cannot see the EU changing.image.jpeg

....maybe - but see how that translates into ay deal we want to do with Europe if we leave -

[sandyf]

The weeks are ticking by. Have the leave campaign put out any timescale on how long we would remain EU citizens and if the UK we would be forced into replacing passports?

[nontabury]

You may well be right - but again its an 'argument' dependent on opinion, not facts. The only 'fact' is that the UK fought to protect bankers' bonuses.

But again, this could be because they were sure that said (incompetent) bankers would leave the UK if their bonuses were restricted? I'm not sure how the restriction would minimise the UK as the EU financial centre? The bankers affected weren't about to rush off to Frankfurt which had agreed to the rules.

Zurich was a possible I understand. But the issue was (and is) whether American banks would stay. One thing is for sure, if we leave the EU, the tables would be tilted against London

And that's another opinion.

I don't mean to be argumentative - but the lack of genuine facts is why its so hard to determine whether the vote should be leave or stay.

My own personal opinion is that ideally the EU should reform itself in various ways. But this is not about to happen because of power/money issues for the people/countries and corporations involved.

Which brings us back to square one....

Unfortunately I cannot see the EU changing.image.jpeg

....maybe - but see how that translates into ay deal we want to do with Europe if we leave -

I'm more concerned with what the EU have in store for the UK and for that matter,the whole of the EU. if we remain in.So far the leaked stories are very worrying.

[nontabury]

The weeks are ticking by. Have the leave campaign put out any timescale on how long we would remain EU citizens and if the UK we would be forced into replacing passports?

Surely the first priority would be to to organize a parade to equal that on the 8th may 1945,VE day.

[Kwasaki]

The weeks are ticking by. Have the leave campaign put out any timescale on how long we would remain EU citizens and if the UK we would be forced into replacing passports?

You scaremonger.

[billd766]

How about this from the bastion of truth and honesty? (The BBC News website) this morning

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296

The Prime Minister will today warn that peace in Europe could be at risk if Britain votes to leave the EU.

The UK has regretted "turning its back" on Europe in the past, David Cameron will say as he invokes history to make his case for staying in the EU.

He will say the UK's national story is intertwined with Europe's, citing events such as the battles of Waterloo, Blenheim and the Spanish Armada.

But those were all battles where the UK was actually fighting European countries.

Does the PM have any idea what he is talking about?