The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, Danwichmann said:

You're quite right that the UK has a very flawed democracy. No democracy is perfect, but I find the 'EU is undemocratic' argument coming from people who are happy with the monarchy, house of lords, FPTP and safe seats more than a touch hypocritical.

The British public are woefully ill informed about what the EU is and what is does. The  EU has massive cross party support, both in commons and lords. This is not a decision that should ever have been left to the public.

I liked your post, but the last bit, I don't really agree with. Sure MPs should do moist of the review, consideration and decision making, but TBH our democracy is so broken that they mostly vote on Party lines, as encouraged/threatened by whips, or as influenced by various big business etc.

They're not all much wiser, less idiotic than the Public.

[ccfcman]

I still believe that it's unlikely to pass. I had said months ago - impossible but the polls have swayed to Leave and more recently towards parity and settled there. I still think and hope, that it will take a ig leap of faith to leave and those who are on the fence will vote Remain. It look like Labour had a new red wave in 2015 and the Tories still smashed them, it looked like the Scots had grown a pair and this faltered too.

When it comes down to it, it's easy to tell some polling fella with a clipboard you're out but scribbling on paper with a legit vote is tougher.

[mjmooney]

I think this is different to a regular election. I just get a strong feeling that a lot of the people who don't usually bother to vote WILL do so on this one - mainly on the Leave side. They think they are 'wielding their power'. Gawdelpus. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

The leave side are definitely louder and more abrasive.

-  I think any campaign that is trying to change the Status Quo needs to do this no matter what the subject,  people in general don't like change so it needs to be loud and abrasive or people take no notice and continue as before.  If it were the other way around and we were voting to join the EU,  the joins would be the loud ones.

-  I was looking at the betting odds and there has been some movement in the last few hours for "Leave".  Remain to win was at 2/7 at 6.00 am ish and has moved to 1/4 now.  Big move in a 2 horse race.

 

[Xela]

I think when it comes to the crunch the undecideds (and there must be a lot) will vote to stay. The basis being that the same is safer than a change, as no-one really knows what a change will bring

[snowychap]

19 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I was looking at the betting odds and there has been some movement in the last few hours for "Leave".  Remain to win was at 2/7 at 6.00 am ish and has moved to 1/4 now.

Why would the odds on Remain shortening indicate a movement for Leave?

[Danwichmann]

43 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

it was when we joined ,all be it we joined a very different animal to the one we have now  ... I understand that lots of people are making ill informed decisions on this  , but on that basis we'd probably be better off not allowing the vast majority to vote in a general election either

 

 

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

I liked your post, but the last bit, I don't really agree with. Sure MPs should do moist of the review, consideration and decision making, but TBH our democracy is so broken that they mostly vote on Party lines, as encouraged/threatened by whips, or as influenced by various big business etc.

They're not all much wiser, less idiotic than the Public.

I don't have much respect for politians either, but the thought of this referendum being decided by people who have made their minds up based purely on sensationalist headlines and social media posts, frankly it's terrifying. 

 

It's true that people vote in general elections equally uninformed, but at least we can change government every 5 years, and there will always be an opposition to somewhat mitigate the ruling party. In the case of an out vote, the effect will be irreversible, and far more serious than any single genera election. 

[ccfcman]

An Taoiseach Enda Kenny with an opinion piece in the Guardian today.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/ireland-fearful-neighbour-leaving-eu-northern-ireland

 

Quote

While I respect that the referendum on 23 June is one to be decided by the UK electorate alone, many Irish citizens living and working in the UK form part of that electorate. Ireland is also the UK’s nearest neighbour and our relationship with Britain is closer than with any other EU member state.

Ireland has a unique perspective on the outcome of the referendum, given the close and multi-layered nature of our relationship with the UK. These ties find their political expression in the relationship between the two governments, between the Irish government and the Northern Ireland executive, including through the north/south ministerial council and the British-Irish council. Crucially, for more than 40 years, they have also been expressed through our common membership of the European Union.

There are four main reasons why we want the UK to remain in the EU: there’s the economy. We want to sustain our mutual economic growth. We trade around €1.2bn of goods and services each week between our two countries. Anything that gets in the way of that flow of trade will add costs and be damaging. There are 200,000 jobs in Ireland and another 200,000 jobs in the UK that are directly supported by our trade. More people work in the UK for Irish food companies than work for Nissan in Sunderland. World-leading Irish employers such as Greencore, Kerry, Glanbia and ABP all employ more local UK workers today because they have the EU rights of free movement of labour, raw materials and their finished products, without the costs of tariffs or barriers.

There’s the EU itself. The EU needs renewal and we need a strong UK at the table to help drive the reform agenda that can help the union regain competitiveness and growth. The UK and Ireland are like-minded on EU matters and the process of working together in Brussels has built an immense store of knowledge, personal relationships and trust between our governments. The prospect of this resource being diminished by the absence of the UK in Brussels is not welcomed by me or my government.

There is the relationship between Britain and Ireland. Preserving that strong relationship would be more challenging if the UK leaves the EU, including with regard to the common travel area, which allows for the passport-free movement of people between these islands.

And there’s Northern Ireland. Our common membership of the EU provided an important backdrop to the Irish and UK governments working together to secure peace in Northern Ireland. The peace process was built by the people of this island coming together, and that will of course continue. When the Good Friday agreement was concluded 18 years ago, the detail of the negotiations and the agreement itself were brought about as a result of intensive engagement by the British and Irish governments in conjunction with the Northern Irish political parties. But often underestimated was the international support for the process, not least that of the European Union. The EU has directly provided, and will continue to provide, much-needed funding to Northern Ireland – almost €3bn in the six years to 2020, helping the Northern Irish economy and supporting new sustainable jobs.

We share the UK’s only land border with another EU member state. Those many thousands of UK visitors to Ireland in recent years know that the border between both parts of Ireland is barely visible. There is a seamless flow of people crossing that border.

If the UK’s decision is to leave the EU, this will no longer be a border between two countries. It will be a border between the UK and the remaining 27 member states of the EU. It will be the EU’s western boundary running from Derry to Dundalk.

New administrative arrangements could be worked out, but there is no possible version of such a development that would avoid extra costs to governments, to business, to consumers and to the convenience of tourists and citizens travelling between our two countries.

What is not easy to quantify and mitigate is the psychological effect of a hardening border on the island. My fear is that it would play into an old narrative – one of division, isolation and difference.

Our two governments and the great majority of people across these islands have worked in partnership to promote peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In the process, British-Irish relations have been transformed. This was marked by the historic visit of Queen Elizabeth to Ireland in 2011 and the reciprocal first ever state visit to the UK by our head of state, President Michael D Higgins in 2014.

The re-establishment of a hard border on the island of Ireland would be a step backwards and present an opportunity for others, with malign agendas, to exploit for destructive purposes.

In stating the Irish government’s position, we do so as a close neighbour of the UK, a European partner and a co-guarantor of peace in Northern Ireland. And as a friend. Our common membership of the EU provided an important external context to the Irish and UK governments working together for peace. It should not be discounted lightly.

Voters have many issues to weigh up and the Irish perspective may not be foremost in their calculations. I hope, however, that some consideration will be given to that perspective, and that everyone who has an interest in Ireland will reflect on how best to use their vote

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

13 hours ago, Danwichmann said:

I'm sure we all have questions we would like politicians to answer, and I think the ones you have mentioned are very valid ones. But have the leave side really got a plan for how to minimise the impact of losing CAP subsidies, for example? These are questions that need to be answered by domestic politicians, not the EU, whether we are in or out. I'm not sure they would influence many voters, and probably shouldn't. 

Doubtful, though I have seen some interesting debates on how it could be mitigated which gives me hope we could manage a Brexit...though our govts aren't so good at policy in practice so would they even listen?
As you said it's up to domestic politicans and leave aren't the Government so we can't really expect them to have all the answers. It's frustrating and they probably should've used some of their budget to employ a face of trade negotiation.

I think if people thought they'd have more domestic opportunities because a politican fought for either in or out of the EU on those grounds, they would and should use that as a voting tool. Which model delivers, or could deliver a more supportive local economy?
For whatever reason, bad domestic policy or prohibitive EU regulation is impacting our local and regional economy. For example any publicly owned HCA site which can deliver 29 houses+ goes to EU tender. We set 29, the EU sets a contract value. 

If I believed any of the remain guys had a fight and answer against Europe's failure I'd be swayed but it's an appalling campaign of despair and scare. More so than leave, who have a genuine though divisive message that unfortunately has been delivered with blunt ignorance.
We wasted our renegotiation chance and now, assuming we remain (which I think we will), we'll have to wait for another nation to stamp their feet until we can stamp ours. Good job Poland and Hungary are!

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

31 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Why would the odds on Remain shortening indicate a movement for Leave?

Got it the wrong way around but you know what I mean,  somethings afoot :-)

[chrisp65]

46 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

 Remain to win was at 2/7 at 6.00 am ish and has moved to 1/4 now.  Big move in a 2 horse race.

It's a great weakness of mine that I have no idea what this means.

I know it is 'odds', and I know in a two horse race having a 4 or a 7 in the equation is probably a big thing. But 'one to four', does that mean very likely or very unlikely? 

I have Hungary in the office sweep and somebody has written on it 250/1 which meant unlikely to win, so my highly educated guess is 1/4 means likely to win?

 

In my defence, I'm shit hot at percentages.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

It's a great weakness of mine that I have no idea what this means.

I know it is 'odds', and I know in a two horse race having a 4 or a 7 in the equation is probably a big thing. But 'one to four', does that mean very likely or very unlikely? 

I have Hungary in the office sweep and somebody has written on it 250/1 which meant unlikely to win, so my highly educated guess is 1/4 means likely to win?

 

In my defence, I'm shit hot at percentages.

Times by the first number then divide by the second afaik

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It's a great weakness of mine that I have no idea what this means.

I know it is 'odds', and I know in a two horse race having a 4 or a 7 in the equation is probably a big thing. But 'one to four', does that mean very likely or very unlikely? 

I have Hungary in the office sweep and somebody has written on it 250/1 which meant unlikely to win, so my highly educated guess is 1/4 means likely to win?

 

In my defence, I'm shit hot at percentages.

1/4 is 4 to 1 ON, as opposed to AGAINST. Sheesh, even I know that, and I'm a betting ignoramus.

Edited June 20, 2016 by mjmooney

[BOF]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It's a great weakness of mine that I have no idea what this means.

I know it is 'odds', and I know in a two horse race having a 4 or a 7 in the equation is probably a big thing. But 'one to four', does that mean very likely or very unlikely? 

I have Hungary in the office sweep and somebody has written on it 250/1 which meant unlikely to win, so my highly educated guess is 1/4 means likely to win?

 

In my defence, I'm shit hot at percentages.

Always turn it into a decimal and that's how much money the bookie will give you for your pound.  That'll tell you how likely they think it is to happen.  250/1 (250.00) is very unlikely.  4/7 (0.57 or 57p back for your pound) on the other hand is a far stingier return and therefore much more likely.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Times by the first number then divide by the second afaik

 

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

1/4 is 4 to 1 ON, as opposed to AGAINST. Sheesh, even I know that, and I'm a betting ignoramus.

Neither of those explanations are anywhere near clear and definitive!

Why the merry **** would they express 4 to 1 ON as having the numbers 1 then 4? How is that remotely sensible?

But, taking the whole of the message, I reckon this means bookies think we are very likely to vote remain....

 

I watched 5 minutes of some roullette programme on ITV the other evening and the woman on that explained that at 2 to 1 you'd win 3. I just announced that she was making no sense and went back over to Adult Preview.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

On regulations, it's worth noting that we're one of the least regulated nations in earth, even accounting for EU regulations.

While that might be true we have many regular red tape reviews which in practice have made things much worse for a fair few industries. In fact the government is encouraging industry change which once again gives big business the edge.
That's definitely a domestic fault but does our tie to a single market encourage us to follow EU regulation?
It would appear that in construction it definitely does, so how do we, as EU regulation obsessives, untangle ourselves from policy which hinders British business from being competitive domestically? 
Since the 90's we've dismantled the states desire to deliver a flexible economy while allowing the EU to fund communities the single market has failed. We definitely could've done more, but would we if we stayed in the EU?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Back over to Adult Preview.

 What would she have had to do to keep you watching the Roulette ? 

[Davkaus]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

When faced with the 'fact' that the local JobCentre director has publicly stated this week that the job situation is 'vibrant' with jobs available right now in the Vale of Glamorgan for anyone that wants them, one of the pensioners simply shook his head and said 'no'.

Was this pensioner Michael "people have had enough of experts" Gove? Who needs experts, or facts, when you can listen to your "gut".

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Was this pensioner Michael "people have had enough of experts" Gove? Who needs experts, or facts, when you can listen to your "gut".

To be fair, he's the same bloke who thinks people who haven't trained as teachers make better teachers.

He's a moron.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Was this pensioner Michael "people have had enough of experts" Gove? Who needs experts, or facts, when you can listen to your "gut".

It's quite in keeping with the last few governments.

They just gave a Damehood to Louise 'If No 10 says bloody evidence-based policy to me one more time I'll deck them one' Casey who has been a go to 'advisor' to the powers that be since the days of Blair.