Should We Leave the EU?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not everything in this discussion revolves around you.

Of the 1528 postings made upon this thread so far, I wonder who is the website member who has made 149 of these, much more than anyone else, as this would appear to suggest that this particular thread revolves around that particular person...:roll:

 

[TheKnightWho]

Of the 1528 postings made upon this thread so far, I wonder who is the website member who has made 149 of these, much more than anyone else, as this would appear to suggest that this particular thread revolves around that particular person...:roll:

Point spectacularly missed as usual, Paul.

 

[Barn]

Could the Brexiters on here say whether they would tolerate free movement like Norway in the event of Brexit?

My own view is that we should have the ability as a country to decide on our immigration policy. But I have to say that I don't have particularly strong views on immigration. Many Brexiters don't, and this was at the heart of the Leave.EU / Grassroots Out / Vote Leave split (with the latter wishing to avoid making the arguments too heavily focussed on immigration).

That's because middle class people like me and most on this board probably do benefit from immigration. It makes our espresso and croissant cheaper in the morning. The people who may suffer are low-skilled working class people who are faced with virtually limitless competition for jobs, removing any incentive to pay much above minimum wage. (Which is why it is odd that Labour are fervently pro-immigration and Conservatives more sceptical, but that's a mystery for another day.)

I would like to target our immigration slightly away from unskilled / low-skilled workers and towards higher-educated workers.

Whilst immigrants as a whole do contribute more in taxes than they take out in benefits, I'm not entirely convinced that this applies on a capital as well as a revenue basis. So whilst immigrants are paying for the education and health services they receive, I'm less sure whether these figures take account of the fact that increasing population in certain areas means that capital investment in new classrooms, GP surgeries and hospitals is required. This investment is well worth making for new researchers, entrepreneurs, teachers, etc. It's less clear whether we would recoup our investment for baristas.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

(Which is why it is odd that Labour are fervently pro-immigration and Conservatives more sceptical, but that's a mystery for another day.)

I don't think it's a mystery at all. I'd say that on the whole Labour is inclined towards free movement because of two strong strands in Labour's philosophy. Firstly - many Labour members have a strongly internationalist approach, which implies that people should be valued and treated well, no matter where they come from. And secondly, although Labour tends to be interventionist on economic matters, when it comes to people's private lives, there's more of an instinct that people should live their lives as they wish without Government interference (provided obviously that they are not harming others). That obviously implies that people should be allowed to choose where they wish to live, and that doesn't sit well with strong immigration controls. I don't think that Labour, on the whole, particularly wants immigration - so Labour are not 'pro-immigration' in that sense. It's more a case of not wanting to dictate where people should live, combined with an unease at anything that hints of discriminating against people based on nationality.

This investment is well worth making for new researchers, entrepreneurs, teachers, etc. It's less clear whether we would recoup our investment for baristas.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that makes me personally feel uncomfortable (and it rather illustrates my point above): Because what you've said it appears to view foreigners merely as commodities, to be valued only to the extent that they are useful to 'us'. I'm sure you didn't mean it in that sense, but suggesting it's only worth investing in health care for people of a certain skill level does seem to indicate that kind of thinking.

I appreciate that in practice, decisions do have to be made on the basis of some financial judgement, based on what is financially and economically sustainable, so in practice it's often impossible to avoid some kind of assessment of what people might contribute, but I'd suggest that on ethical grounds treating people in that way is something we ought to try to avoid where possible.

 

[Barn]

I appreciate that in practice, decisions do have to be made on the basis of some financial judgement, based on what is financially and economically sustainable, so in practice it's often impossible to avoid some kind of assessment of what people might contribute, but it's something we ought to try to avoid where possible.

You start this sentence with your head and finish it with your heart. I don't blame you for that because it is a difficult topic. But if we wish to be discussing politics you can't simply focus on the bits of politics that make you feel good and disregard the bits that make you uncomfortable.

It isn't a kindness to ignore these things. Infrastructure for an increasing population has to be paid for (in which case the poorest suffer through increased national debt) and if it isn't schools are overcrowded and hospitals have long waiting lists and people working normal jobs have no hope of buying a home for their family. And these things happen to the greatest extent not in leafy Surrey but in Luton and Leicester and Bradford and Blackburn and those other forgotten areas where immigration is high without sufficient investment. And by failing to talk about the matter sensibly and soberly we have needless resentment towards immigrants who have done nothing wrong as individuals.

No other country in the world apologises for wanting to place sensible quantitative and qualitative limits on immigration, to allow for sensible infrastructure planning and to allow for gaps in employment to be filled by highly-skilled people. These sorts of policies are followed by decent, human rights observing countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You start this sentence with your head and finish it with your heart. I don't blame you for that because it is a difficult topic. But if we wish to be discussing politics you can't simply focus on the bits of politics that make you feel good and disregard the bits that make you uncomfortable.

I'm not disregarding uncomfortable bits. Rather, I'm suggesting that politics needs to be rooted in strong ethical values. And I would suggest that if you start to view people, whatever their nationality, purely in terms of what they can do for us, rather than as human beings in their own right, then those ethical values would appear to be lacking. There certainly has been a trend in much of the anti-immigration rhetoric from many politicians to speak about migrants in such terms, and there is a risk that when you start evaluating whether it's worth providing hospitals etc. based on people's skill levels of falling into that kind of thinking.

I agree with you that this is a difficult topic - because what we do is ultimately constrained not only by economics, but by the conflicting needs of different communities.

No other country in the world apologises for wanting to place sensible quantitative and qualitative limits on immigration, to allow for sensible infrastructure planning and to allow for gaps in employment to be filled by highly-skilled people. These sorts of policies are followed by decent, human rights observing countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I think that's a little disingenuous. Most democratic countries, certainly including Australia, have strong debates and disagreements about levels of immigration, about what controls should be in place, and the treatment of migrants. There's not really anything special about the UK in that regard, and I don't think it's correct to imply that there is something unusual in our attitudes.

 

[Barn]

OK, we'll agree to disagree. You seem to believe in a world without borders. This is a principled (if ideological) view and I respect it.

What I find a little galling, however, is the presumption you seem to have that those who disagree are somehow lacking in ethics or good faith.

One can base one's thoughts in ideology (unlimited care for unlimited people) or in pragmatism (does it make the poor better or worse off in aggregate? what effect does it have on the country of origin to lose its workforce? are we creating sustainable communities?). I don't think either of these has the monopoly on ethics.

 

[TheKnightWho]

OK, we'll agree to disagree. You seem to believe in a world without borders. This is a principled (if ideological) view and I respect it.

What I find a little galling, however, is the presumption you seem to have that those who disagree are somehow lacking in ethics or good faith.

One can base one's thoughts in ideology (unlimited care for unlimited people) or in pragmatism (does it make the poor better or worse off in aggregate? what effect does it have on the country of origin to lose its workforce? are we creating sustainable communities?). I don't think either of these has the monopoly on ethics.

You keep dichotomising everything into these two extreme camps: a world without borders vs. stricter controls. Divided Europe vs. a single European superstate etc. I have to object that all of these issues are immensely more complex than that.

I don't think you're just using it as a literary device to paint your opponents as extremists who believe in Marxian ideals or of some kind of European nationalism, but it does have the result that you're not really engaging with the issue.

 

[Antman]

Of the 1528 postings made upon this thread so far, I wonder who is the website member who has made 149 of these, much more than anyone else, as this would appear to suggest that this particular thread revolves around that particular person...:roll:

I know who my money would be on

 

[Barn]

You keep dichotomising everything into these two extreme camps: a world without borders vs. stricter controls. Divided Europe vs. a single European superstate etc. I have to object that all of these issues are immensely more complex than that.

I don't think you're just using it as a literary device to paint your opponents as extremists who believe in Marxian ideals or of some kind of European nationalism, but it does have the result that you're not really engaging with the issue.

I don't think it is me that is guilty of simplism.

Statements such as "And I would suggest that if you start to view people, whatever their nationality, purely in terms of what they can do for us, rather than as human beings in their own right, then those ethical values would appear to be lacking. There certainly has been a trend in much of the anti-immigration rhetoric from many politicians to speak about migrants in such terms, and there is a risk that when you start evaluating whether it's worth providing hospitals etc. based on people's skill levels of falling into that kind of thinking." are suggestive that one believes that an immigration system based on migrant skills and our capacity is inherently unethical.

On Europe, the idea that "more Europe" will be the answer to Europe's current woes is hardly controversial and is openly admitted by the EU's leadership.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't think it is me that is guilty of simplism.

Statements such as "And I would suggest that if you start to view people, whatever their nationality, purely in terms of what they can do for us, rather than as human beings in their own right, then those ethical values would appear to be lacking. There certainly has been a trend in much of the anti-immigration rhetoric from many politicians to speak about migrants in such terms, and there is a risk that when you start evaluating whether it's worth providing hospitals etc. based on people's skill levels of falling into that kind of thinking." are suggestive that one believes that an immigration system based on migrant skills and our capacity is inherently unethical.

On Europe, the idea that "more Europe" will be the answer to Europe's current woes is hardly controversial and is openly admitted by the EU's leadership.

Should we view people as mere tools to our own happiness, then?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

OK, we'll agree to disagree. You seem to believe in a world without borders. This is a principled (if ideological) view and I respect it.

He he! Thanks for the respect, but just to clarify: That's actually not my quite my view. I regard a world without borders as the ideal that we should aim for in the very long term, but as something that is sadly not remotely practical in today's world. Indeed, you might be surprised to learn that I regard the EU's freedom of movement rules in today's world as a practical disadvantage of EU membership (although not a sufficient disadvantage to outweigh the other advantages of remaining a member).

However, where I disagree with many others is that I regard immigration controls as something that regrettably must be imposed out of practical necessity, not as something to be desired in principle. What I find objectionable is the apparent attitude of many of the Brexit side - that immigration controls are seen not as a regrettable necessity but as desirable in their own right, to be welcomed as a way of keeping out people who because they are not British, are somehow in some unspoken way deemed unworthy of being seen in the same way as British people. Of course this is never said explicitly, but it seems to me that much of the Brexit campaign's material about immigration (and indeed, before that, much of UKIP's campaigning in various elections) is based on pandering to that kind of attitude. And to my mind, speaking about migrants as if they are economic commodities rather than as human beings risks perpetuating that attitude - which is why I picked up on your comment about it only being worth investing in hospitals etc. for skilled migrants. (After all, can you imagine what the reaction would be if someone suggested that building hospitals only gives a return on investment if it's done for skilled British people, but is probably not value for money if hospitals are built for unskilled British people...?)

What I find a little galling, however, is the presumption you seem to have that those who disagree are somehow lacking in ethics or good faith.

I should clarify, I'm certainly not accusing you personally of lacking in ethical values - in fact, I regard your posts as generally being very thoughtful. I was more trying to draw attention to where the line of thought of 'only worth investing if it's for skilled people' could lead. Apologies if my posts gave a different impression.

I do think there is something ethically very wrong with the way certain political groups - including many of those campaigning for Brexit - portray migrants not as human beings, but as a threat, or as commodities to be allowed in and - in effect, used only to the extent that they benefit British people - and it is to the groups who produce that kind of material that my comments about ethics are really addressed.

 

[cjp]

I was going to post this in humour but I think it is appropriate for here.
I regret the discussion is becoming politicised rather than fact based.
I see both sides as being guilty of not helping the electorate decide on facts rather spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD)
The pro side call up big guns who say that terrible things COULD happen or MIGHT happen with no facts only feelings to back things up. After all the UK was a great trading country before the Economic Union and, although things have changed, if a country or person want to do business with us now I think few would turn away because we are not in Europe.
( Of course big business is worried about their profits - not the country since otherwise there would be no overseas call centre using cheap labour and more UK jobs. Remember also that these financial pundits have previously shown talent in such things as the bank failures.)
Politicians have shown their honesty and financial probity (expenses and doing nothing to stop the loop holes relating to offshore taxation welcomed by the rich and MPs) so you know how they can be trusted

Anyway on with the humour or perhaps a reminder . . .

While walking down the street one day a Corrupt Politician (that just might be redundant) was tragically hit by a car and died.

He arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

“Welcome to heaven,” says St ... Peter... “Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you...”
“No problem, just let me in,” says the Politicain
“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from the Big Boss. What He wants to do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.”
“Really? I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven.” Says the Politicain.
“I’m sorry, but the Big Boss rarely speaks, but when He does then His will must be done.”
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course.

In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest wines and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing, back slapping and telling jokes.
They are all having such a good time that before the Politician realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, “Now it’s time to visit heaven...”
So, 24 hours passed with the Politician joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

“Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.”

The politician reflects for a minute, then he answers: “Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.”
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell...

Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls to the ground. The black bags and what goes in the top falls right back out of the bottom.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.

“I don’t understand,” stammers the politician . “Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?”

The devil smiles at him and says “Yesterday we were campaigning...” “Today, you see the result of your vote...”


Please vote wisely in the referendum. YOU and your children will have to live with the consequences. And if you chose to not vote then you will let others make YOUR decision for you. And if you don’t like the results then it’s your own fault.

 

[miami]

The pro side call up big guns who say that terrible things COULD happen or MIGHT happen with no facts only feelings to back things up

Where the leave side say "anything could happen"

After all the UK was a great trading country before the Economic Union

Ahh yes, back in the days of Rule Britannia when we still had an empire. Yes the world is just the same now :roll:

and, although things have changed, if a country or person want to do business with us now I think few would turn away because we are not in Europe.

You think. Where almost everyone in the world with any economic knowlege thinks the other way.

( Of course big business is worried about their profits - not the country since otherwise there would be no overseas call centre using cheap labour and more UK jobs.

Call centres are outsourced to non-eu countries like India. How will that change by leaving the EU?

Please vote wisely in the referendum. YOU and your children will have to live with the consequences. And if you chose to not vote then you will let others make YOUR decision for you. And if you don’t like the results then it’s your own fault.

A large portion of the leave campaign will not have to live with the consequences - they'll be dead in 10 years. Young people, who pay the taxes, overwhelmingly want to stay in. Old people - those that don't pay taxes any more - want to leave.

If we vote in, we can always have another referendum in a few years time - I'm sure UKIP will still be on the polling card come the 2020 election, if they're still attracting 15% of the vote that's a lot of seats that Corbyn can pick up.

If we vote leave, you're right, there's no going back. If we want back into the EU we can forget the rebate and vetos and euro and schengen opt-outs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Time and tide wait for no man, as they say, so thankfully I notice that we are now in the last month of this seemingly never-ending pre-referendum period that appears to be there for the sole use of politicians raising their political profiles before the electorate.

 

[Senex]

A large portion of the leave campaign will not have to live with the consequences - they'll be dead in 10 years. Young people, who pay the taxes, overwhelmingly want to stay in. Old people - those that don't pay taxes any more - want to leave.

Indeed. But unfortunately experience shews that it is the old people who tend to vote and those very young people who tend not to.

But where do you get the idea that old people are "those that don't pay taxes any more"? I and most of the older (retired) people that I know still have to hand over far too much money to the Inland Revenue for the politicians to squander, quite apart from Council Tax, VAT, BBC-tax, and all the rest of it.

Back to the referendum. My worry is that this is perhaps the most important issue we have had to face in many years, particularly for the future of all those young people who will have to live with the outcome, and yet the campaign has so far been appalling, especially on the Brexit side but with the Remainers not far behind. Commentary in the media is not helping. And there's too strong an impression that it's all about an internal fight in the Conservative Party with the other parties quietly sitting back and enjoying the picture of the Tories destroying themselves. Are there going to be any really strong campaigns in favour from the ScotNats, Labour, and the Liberals -- or is their view thatr whatever the outcome of the referendum they will benefit from a Conservative Party split beyond recovery?

 

[miami]

Indeed. But unfortunately experience shews that it is the old people who tend to vote and those very young people who tend not to.

But where do you get the idea that old people are "those that don't pay taxes any more"? I and most of the older (retired) people that I know still have to hand over far too much money to the Inland Revenue for the politicians to squander, quite apart from Council Tax, VAT, BBC-tax, and all the rest of it.

A millionaire pensioner pays very little in tax compared to a £50k/year train driver, as an absolute number, as well as a percentage of their net worth. Over 75s don't pay for a tv license. VAT is a pretty small cost in the grand scheme of things.

Back to the referendum. My worry is that this is perhaps the most important issue we have had to face in many years, particularly for the future of all those young people who will have to live with the outcome, and yet the campaign has so far been appalling, especially on the Brexit side but with the Remainers not far behind. Commentary in the media is not helping.

Yes, lies and fear on both sides.

And there's too strong an impression that it's all about an internal fight in the Conservative Party with the other parties quietly sitting back and enjoying the picture of the Tories destroying themselves. Are there going to be any really strong campaigns in favour from the ScotNats, Labour, and the Liberals -- or is their view thatr whatever the outcome of the referendum they will benefit from a Conservative Party split beyond recovery?

Aparently not

Would have been better if the Torys had all backed brexit.

It's sickening that British WW2 veterans (and other British ex-pats who have lots to lose) aren't allowed to vote, but Austrailians are allowed, but european taxpayers who have the most to lose don't get to vote

Two Britons living abroad have lost their Court of Appeal battle over the right to vote in June's EU referendum.
The challenge was brought by World War Two veteran Harry Shindler, 94, who lives in Italy, and lawyer and Belgian resident Jacquelyn MacLennan, 54.
Under law, UK citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years cannot vote.

It might seem peculiar that a young Australian here in Britain on a two-year working holiday is allowed to have a say on whether the UK should leave the European Union.
But Michael Ingle, a 27-year-old physiotherapist living in Surrey, defends his right to participate in the 23 June referendum.
He says that as a taxpayer, and a citizen of the Commonwealth, what happens to Britain is important to him and will have ramifications for the wider world well beyond the cliffs of Dover.

Citizens from most EU countries living in the UK will not get a vote in the referendum on Europe, No 10 has said.
The eligibility rules will be broadly the same as for a general election, rather than local or European votes.
Irish citizens in the UK are eligible. Residents from two other EU nations, Malta and Cyprus, also qualify, along with others from the Commonwealth.
The SNP's Humza Yousaf said excluding other EU citizens risked entering "into the rhetoric of division".

 

[northwichcat]

A millionaire pensioner pays very little in tax compared to a £50k/year train driver

The government seems to have made a confusing system for pensioners which depends on when you were born. However, it looks like some pensioners pay the same rate of tax as working age people so for them £50k from their pension and non-ISA savings interest would mean they pay around £200 less in income tax than a train driver on £50k (due to the £1000 savings allowance.) However, that presumes the train driver doesn't earn any non-ISA savings interest. The difference is the pensioner is benefiting from the NI contributions they've paid, while the train driver is paying NI contributions.

 

[Railops]

With the various polls now showing a massive swing to Staying in it seems as if the doom and scaremongering has worked a treat.
A large 20-30 points win for Remain is now looking a racing certainty, I can't see any way the Outers can claw it back as they just cannot compete with a Govt. and all it's departments fully engaged in Project Threat.
It was always going to be totally lop-sided campaign with the Govt. allowed to spend any amount whatsoever with no checkable limit, the Outers could never compete with that.

 

[Harbornite]

With the various polls now showing a massive swing to Staying in it seems as if the doom and scaremongering has worked a treat.
A large 20-30 points win for Remain is now looking a racing certainty, I can't see any way the Outers can claw it back as they just cannot compete with a Govt. and all it's departments fully engaged in Project Threat.
It was always going to be totally lop-sided campaign with the Govt. allowed to spend any amount whatsoever with no checkable limit, the Outers could never compete with that.

At the end of the day, the government cannot force people to vote remain. People can make up their own minds and they can use the information is available on the internet. Therefore, I wouldn't say that the lack of spending limits for the government is the reason for more people wanting to stay. On another note, I wouldn't rely on these opinion polls...

 

[TheKnightWho]

With the various polls now showing a massive swing to Staying in it seems as if the doom and scaremongering has worked a treat.
A large 20-30 points win for Remain is now looking a racing certainty, I can't see any way the Outers can claw it back as they just cannot compete with a Govt. and all it's departments fully engaged in Project Threat.
It was always going to be totally lop-sided campaign with the Govt. allowed to spend any amount whatsoever with no checkable limit, the Outers could never compete with that.

Weren't you crowing barely more than a week ago that you were going to win?

I feel I should also add that a lot of people are being very blasé about job losses here: do none of you think there will be any? How many are tolerable to you before you think leaving is a bad idea?

 

[Aldaniti]

With the various polls now showing a massive swing to Staying in it seems as if the doom and scaremongering has worked a treat.
A large 20-30 points win for Remain is now looking a racing certainty, I can't see any way the Outers can claw it back as they just cannot compete with a Govt. and all it's departments fully engaged in Project Threat.
It was always going to be totally lop-sided campaign with the Govt. allowed to spend any amount whatsoever with no checkable limit, the Outers could never compete with that.

Fear not it's far too early to tell. I would imagine all will be decided in the last week, probably the last 48 hours. My guess is that voting intentions are such that an event - even a minor event - could send things one way or the other.

And the pollsters called the General Election result correctly, didn't they?!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed. But unfortunately experience shews that it is the old people who tend to vote and those very young people who tend not to.

Very well said. I could not have put it better myself if I tried. I am 71 years of age and old enough to appreciate the democratic ability to cast my vote in this country.

I do not speak against all young people, but there are many of these who seem neither to care if they can vote nor of the fact that they are free to do so.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. But unfortunately experience shews that it is the old people who tend to vote and those very young people who tend not to.

It's also worth remembering that, as well as having paid a lifetime of taxation, those voters of pensionable age will have experienced a long time living with the EU, as well as in many cases, life before it, so perhaps we shouldn't be so blase about their judgement of it.

 

[miami]

With the various polls now showing a massive swing to Staying in it seems as if the doom and scaremongering has worked a treat.

There's been plenty of doom and scaremongering on both sides. Always coming from the Tories of course.

A large 20-30 points win for Remain is now looking a racing certainty, I can't see any way the Outers can claw it back as they just cannot compete with a Govt. and all it's departments fully engaged in Project Threat.
It was always going to be totally lop-sided campaign with the Govt. allowed to spend any amount whatsoever with no checkable limit, the Outers could never compete with that.

How much has the daily express, daily mail, and in fact almost all the print press, spent on the campaign so far?

It's nowhere near over though, and these polls are concerning as many young people will think "I don't need to vote", and thus the actual people that vote will be different to the actual feeling.

I do not speak against all young people, but there are many of these who seem neither to care if they can vote nor of the fact that they are free to do so.

It's depressing, as many of them will of course vote for the latest Britain's Got Talent competition, because that is so important in comparison.

Fear not it's far too early to tell. I would imagine all will be decided in the last week, probably the last 48 hours. My guess is that voting intentions are such that an event - even a minor event - could send things one way or the other.

And the pollsters called the General Election result correctly, didn't they?!

Within about 2 percentage points.

 

[EM2]

I do not speak against all young people, but there are many of these who seem neither to care if they can vote nor of the fact that they are free to do so.

Having spoken to quite a few, the attitude seems to be 'they don't do anything for us, so we don't vote'. When it's explained that if more of the youth use their vote, political parties might be inclined to pay them attention, but all the time they think that politics is irrelevant to them, the parties will make sure it remains so, they often have a change of heart.
Any party that could make itself sufficiently attractive to young voters could clean up for years to come.

 

[Railops]

Weren't you crowing barely more than a week ago that you were going to win?

No I wasn't.

As you're saying I was though you will be able to produce the post won't you ?

 

[miami]

Having spoken to quite a few, the attitude seems to be 'they don't do anything for us, so we don't vote'. When it's explained that if more of the youth use their vote, political parties might be inclined to pay them attention, but all the time they think that politics is irrelevant to them, the parties will make sure it remains so, they often have a change of heart.
Any party that could make itself sufficiently attractive to young voters could clean up for years to come.

If all the people who didn't vote had voted for the "apathy" party last year, the apathy party would have a 30 seat majority in the commons with 340 seats, with the Tories being the opposition with 215 seats, and the SNP being in 3rd place with 50 seats. Labour on 40, Lib Dems on 2 (Farron and Clegg), Greens on 1, UUP on 1, Speaker on 1.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No I wasn't.

As you're saying I was though you will be able to produce the post won't you ?

I'm pretty sure you were.

Gordon Brown lavishing praise on the EU today will surely put one more nail in the Remain coffin.
There is a rock in Scotland he needs to crawl back under.

Ah yes, here we go.

That's to say nothing of Johnuk123's even more obvious change of heart on what he thinks the outcome will be.

 

[Railops]

I'm pretty sure you were.

Ah yes, here we go.

Me saying another nail in the coffin of Remain is not me crowing about winning as although I hope it's a leave vote I know it won't be and I have never ever posted anything where I've said Leave are going to win.
So you're wrong - again.