Brexit - The End of the United Kingdom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I genuinely wasn't expecting it, I thought sense would prevail.

It'll create havoc. Or it won't. Definitely one or the other.

---

Democracy has prevailed. The sky hasn't fallen in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I'm critical of many aspects of the EU. As a kind of medium-soft leftie I think the EU has become too right wing in the last decade but one reason I have long liked the EU is because for a long time it dampened nationalism. Since the EZ crisis it has really only fertilised nationalism again so it only has itself to blame for this. Let's see where it ends up though. Europe was slower to recover than the UK, but the UK recovery is fragile, imbalanced and debt-fuelled. The EU is growing again.

In the UK itself I think poorer people have been duped into voting against their best interests, but who am I to argue in my relatively comfortable London bubble?

For me though the argument of taking back control is a total con-trick. The UK is a sham of a democracy. Here's why I think so:
- The country doesn't have a constitution
- The most unpopular party in the land wins a majority with 25% of the vote, due to first past the post
- This party is funded by billionaire tax dodgers and wealthy financial vested interests
- At the same time they cut official public funding to the Opposition and pass law curtailing Union funding
- The party is endorsed by billionaire vested interests in the media; Opposition is either ridiculed or demonised
- This and the last government bypass Commons by passing law by Statutory Instrument (a technicality that avoids Commons debate); use of this measure has increased exponentially, starting with Labour and escalating since 2010
- When the unelected House of Lords pressurises government into backing down (e.g., disability benefit cuts), Cameron threatens to add more unelected Lords, but all Tory supporters, just to add numbers on his side
- Lords can only recommend, it can't actually make anything happen
- Regular filibustering is allowed to defeat Opposition motions in Commons

And so on, not to mention NI and Scotland having to abide by a decision they voted against. An Honours system that knights people like Philip Green and Lynton Crosby - the Australian who orchestrated the same fear campaign in 2015 that Cameron used in the referendum, and whose firm orchestrated an overtly racist mayoral campaign against Sadiq Khan.

This referendum had nothing to do with respect for popular concerns. It was all about Cameron trying to control some headbangers in his own party. He put his party before his country, and his party won.

Now a bunch of neo-con nutters like Gove (who privatised public legal aid funding to the poor)*, Liam Fox et al are being given the keys to the country. Boris has no principles, he's just a self-interested egotist, out for himself only.

The EU - despite its faults - provided the governance checks and balances that the UK lacks. Without the EU there is no effective governance mechanism to protect the UK from its own undemocratic and illiberal instincts. That's why I voted Remain.

But hey, we beat Italy :)


*and in fairness Gove's prison reforms make sense.

---

What checks and balances? Zero hours contracts?

The EU did nothing for the people.

One of the reasons they rejected it.

It could not really be any worse than it is.

The EU protect nobody from anything, that is the problem.

You seem to think it is some sort of Guardian angel, but all we have seen is rising inequality in the UK whilst in the EU.

As you yourself point out, Gove privatised public legal aid funding to the poor, were was the lovely EU to protect the poor?

Nowhere to be seen.

Fact is many people had nothing left to lose.


"Without the EU there is no effective governance mechanism to protect the UK from its own undemocratic and illiberal instincts."

Corrected to:-

"Within the EU there was no effective governance mechanism to protect the UK from its own undemocratic and illiberal instincts."

Really the EU has done next to nothing.

Worker have been stripped of pretty much every right one way or another.

Maybe it will bring about an early General Election?

Here's an interesting take on the whole situation which appeared in the Guardian comments section:

Quote:

---

Guardian comment:
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Maybe it will bring about an early General Election?

---

I was thinking that earlier, that instead of of a second referendum they could try and do it another way, by calling a GE and making EU status the #1 issue. A fairly huge majority of the current Parliament were Remain voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

What checks and balances? Zero hours contracts?

The EU did nothing for the people.

One of the reasons they rejected it.

It could not really be any worse than it is.

The EU protect nobody from anything, that is the problem.

You seem to think it is some sort of Guardian angel, but all we have seen is rising inequality in the UK whilst in the EU.

As you yourself point out, Gove privatised public legal aid funding to the poor, were was the lovely EU to protect the poor?

Nowhere to be seen.

Fact is many people had nothing left to lose.


"Without the EU there is no effective governance mechanism to protect the UK from its own undemocratic and illiberal instincts."

Corrected to:-

"Within the EU there was no effective governance mechanism to protect the UK from its own undemocratic and illiberal instincts."

Really the EU has done next to nothing.

Worker have been stripped of pretty much every right one way or another.

---

Complete garbage, no workers rights in Britain via their domestic Parliament since 1979.
The only ones imposed have been via the EU.

The British government has lost its appeal in the UK's Supreme Court, meaning the British parliament will have to vote on triggering Article 50: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ote-article-50

The devolved governments have also had their cases rejected, meaning there is no legal requirement to consult them on Brexit. Essentially, it means they won't have a veto and their will can be by-passed by Westminster.

Alex Salmond is talking up the likelihood of a second Scottish independence referendum, as is probably to be expected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-38723261

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC News

Former SNP leader Alex Salmond says a second independence referendum in Scotland was "very likely" if the government rejected its amendments to the Article 50 bill.

He said very few people voted for Britain to withdraw from the European market place, and his party is set to table 50 amendments to the proposed legislation.

Mr Salmond said if the government decides "to bulldoze" the bill through the House of Commons, does "not take on board any of the amendments put forward" or is not interested in the compromise proposal for Scotland "to remain in the single market place and ensure Scottish jobs and prosperity, then I think in Nicola Sturgeon's words 'an independence referendum becomes very likely'."

He added: "If Theresa May throws down the gauntlet, Nicola Sturgeon will pick it up."

---

Some politician in the North there just suggested a second referendum, just caught the end of a news item.

Any idea who it was or which party?

I don't think that would go down well across the water. There's pretty much no chance of it happening. Neither Labour nor the Tories would entertain the notion of having a second referendum. Labour's position is pretty much, "Yeah, we supported Remain, but we have to accept the will of the people now." And they sort of do for their own survival as a credible force in English politics; if Labour pursued the Lib Dems' route of demanding a second referendum, I'd only see them losing further votes to UKIP.

If the Union is to persist, I do still think regional exceptions or special arrangements should be made as the political culture and climate in England is vastly different to that in Scotland and the north of Ireland. What the English might think of as good for them (although I doubt the utterly-bonkers idea of a hard Brexit will have a silver lining), will very certainly be disastrous for Scotland and Ireland.

May won't visit the North before triggering A50. Not like her to not keep her word. A thoroughly useless PM.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0327/862...urgeon-brexit/

Looks like they pulled her out of her coffin for that second photo.

I'll send them some nails so that she never comes out.

I actually can't get over the sheer arrogance. I mean, i get that the Tories are arrogant and am kinda used to the concept given their history, but I'm flabbergasted that they just keep moving the goalposts on their arrogance.

David Davis on QT last night talking about immigration is a case in point.

Actually, is it arrogance if you're completely devoid of ability, intelligence and you're all at sea?

Nicola Sturgeon now has a mandate from the Scottish parliament to push for indyref2 as MSPs have just voted to back a second referendum by 69 votes to 59: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39422747

Shocked that the BBC didn't state that she "narrowly" won.

In other news, the Tories have indicated that they are going to block the vote until the 2020s.

Are they seriously that inept?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Grauniad

[b]ut Mundell has told the BBC that the government does not see the 18-month timetable (the expected timetable for the talks - because up to six months may ne needed for ratification at the end of the process) as significant.

Instead, he implied that the government would not talk to the Scottish government about a referendum until, not just Brexit, but until the transitional period was over too. That would put back a referendum until into the 2020s.

---

Here's the video. Mundell is a cretin.

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/s...b01ea2330bcee3


This is a tweet that was below Mundell's. Classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Brogan

Michael Brogan‏ @Michael45788700 34 minutes ago
@CameronMcNeish @DavidMundellDCT @WingsScotland He couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were on the sole

---

https://twitter.com/Michael45788700/...68756105920515

Guardian front page on January 1973 when the UK (as well as Ireland and Denmark) joined the EEC:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8E8kIYXQAEARPa.jpg

Here's the original tweet:

https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/statu...25130198970368

Interesting piece at the bottom left as Martin McGuinness was arrested the day before by the Gardaí in Letterkenny.

Here's the text referring to Ireland:

Quote:

---

v. In particular, we must pay attention to the UK's unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK's withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.

---

http://news.sky.com/story/britains-a...-text-10817451

It sounds like Germany is going to make Brexit very difficult for the UK: http://uk.businessinsider.com/german...iations-2017-3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lianna Brinded

All signs are pointing towards Germany making Brexit talks difficult for Britain, just as it is about to trigger Article 50 and thereby starting the formal two-year negotiation process for the UK leaving the European Union.

According to a range of German officials cited by the Financial Times, Britain should expect:

• A deal that it probably will not be happy with.
• A deal less favourable than staying in the EU.
• The UK will have to pay the entire £50 billion (€57.3 billion) Brexit divorce bill or face being sued.

Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s close ally and said "we have no interest in punishing the UK, but we also have no interest in putting European integration in danger over the UK. That’s why our priority must be, with a heavy heart, to keep the rest of Europe — without the UK — as close together as possible."

---

And the EU has also, on behalf of member state Spain, agreed to make accord between the UK and Spain on the status of Gibraltar a condition of any overall Brexit deal for Britain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39453535

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC News

A draft document on the EU's Brexit strategy said no agreement on the EU's future relationship with the UK would apply to Gibraltar without the consent of Spain, giving it a potential veto.

...

In its draft Brexit negotiating guidelines, the European Council identified future arrangements for Gibraltar as one of its 26 core principles.

It wrote: "After the UK leaves the union, no agreement between the EU and the UK may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without agreement between Spain and the UK."

Brussels officials were quoted by the Guardian as saying the EU was standing up for its members interests.

"That means Spain now," a senior EU official told the newspaper.

"Any extension of the deal [after withdrawal] to Gibraltar... will require the support of Spain. [The text] recognises that there are two parties to this dispute."

---

This really is fast becoming a nightmare for the UK.

https://media.tenor.co/images/544514...d53c/tenor.gif

Guy Verhofstadt more or less guarantees no hard border:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lisa O'Carroll, The Grauniad

Ireland got prominent mention in the Guy Verhofstadt press conference after the vote and a promise that there will be no hard border will be a boon to border businesses desperately worried about their future.

Asked by an RTE reporter how difficult it would be to achieve the desire for no border controls, Verhofstadt said: “It will be very difficult and it will be very high on the priority list: no hard border, respect in all its aspects of the Good Friday agreement.”

Notably he added: “It is the EU 27 who have to taken on board the [interests] of the Irish Republic, binding the Dublin vote closer to Brussels.”

In a considerable coup for Ireland, the border issue is at the top of the priority list.

The European parliament president Antonio Tajani also mentioned its predicament saying that the Good Friday Agreement, like the EU four freedoms, must not be touched.

He was also asked whether action would be taken against Nigel Farage for his comment in the debate about the EU acting like the mafia, or gangsters. (See 9.02am.)

A slightly contemptuous looking Tajani said Farage needed to show respect to democratic structures. “We don’t have here mafia [or] gangsters,” he said.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Guy Verhofstadt more or less guarantees no hard border:



https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

---

Great news. I assume this is the EU acknowledging the special circumstances of the north and pretty much saying that special status is a reality/possibility, as far as the EU is concerned. If the UK government similarly has no interest in imposing a hard border in Ireland - as the likes of Theresa May and David Davis have been claiming - then they'll presumably place the effective UK-EU border around Britain.

It can't be any other way. If 21,000 British soldiers and 13,000 RUC couldn't secure the border a couple of dozen customs officers armed with no more than clipboards and biros aren't going to be able to.

'Ireland on course to issue one million passports in wake of Brexit': http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...exit-1.3050540

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gordon Deegan

...

This follows the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Charlie Flanagan confirming that 250,000 applications have been received for the first quarter of this year - a 26 per cent increase on the same period for last year.

The number of Irish passport applications from those born in Great Britain between January and the end of March increased by 69 per cent to 23,181 on the corresponding period last year, almost half the 48,741 who applied for Irish passport for the entire of 2016.

Similarly, applications for Irish passports from those born in Northern Ireland increased by 68 per cent going from 16,581 in the first quarter of last year to 27,898 in the same period of 2017.

---

It's a little known fact that Mrs Backstothewall is one of them'uns. Our kids have both British and Irish passports as a result. The British ones are due to be renewed but she's decided not to bother, and she's getting an Irish one before we go away next.

May to put call for June 8 general election before Commons

http://www.rte.ie/news/world/2017/04...7-uk-politics/

Interesting times ahead ... can see this being played as Referendum #2 in Scotland and NI.

I know Corbyn has agreed to support this, but the party members would be absolutely insane to.

Well they did.

Labour have had so many opportunities to hurt the Tories with Brexit and they have failed miserably. I kinda want them to die at this stage. Useless cretins. Corbyn is a mug.

I just want Scotland gone from this whole mess. Sure it abandons England to the right-wingers and racists, but England have had plenty of chances to fix things and just keep lurching further and further towards a permanent Thatcherian dystopia. Any progressive English people who want out of Toryland will be more than welcome north of the border.

A vivid piece, this, with insight into past, present and possible future Irish border-life.

'Will Brexit reopen old wounds with a new hard border in Northern Ireland?': https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ounds-troubles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hagan

Depending on who you speak to, then, the ramifications of a hard Brexit for Northern Ireland seem at best deeply worrying and at worst cataclysmic. [Eamonn] McCann and [George] Knight [a Protestant historian from Clones], from their differing perspectives, both intimated that they believe Brexit will probably lead to the breakup of the UK. It is a view shared by the cautious, thoughtful [Fintan] O’Toole: “The United Kingdom has proved itself to be a very contingent construct, but I am not sure it will survive Brexit,” he says. He proposes a special bilateral deal that could be worked out for Northern Ireland, which echoes what he calls “the constructive ambiguities of the Belfast agreement concerning the uniqueness and complexity of the state”. It is difficult to see that kind of flexibility being formulated by what [Roy] Foster calls “the awful Daily Mail government at Westminster”.

What future, then, for an island that, pending the June general election result, is currently united north and south in its opposition to Brexit? “What we may see,” says McCann, “is that the question of a unified Ireland is posed in an unprecedented context: not as republican versus unionist, but in terms of alignment with Europe.” It is one of the ironies of Brexit that the Irish border may yet be consigned to history by the very people who insist that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley. Stranger things have happened of late.

---

All very amusing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

According to an account in Frankfurter Allgemeine, Mr Juncker said: "I leave Downing Street 10 times more sceptical than I was before." After the dinner, held last Wednesday, the UK government called it a "constructive, useful working dinner". But the German newspaper report suggests Mr Juncker said there would be no trade deal between the UK and the rest of the EU if the UK failed to pay the "divorce" bill which it is expected to be asked for.

It was the day after the meeting that Mr Juncker reportedly told German chancellor Angela Merkel that Mrs May was "deluding herself" and "living in another galaxy" when it came to the issue of Brexit talks.

---

Clearly, the Tories are desperately trying to paint for the British people a very different and misleading picture from what is really going on behind the scenes. I hope the British electorate can see through this and duly punish them in the upcoming election. It's hard to see anything other than a Tory victory at the minute, unfortunately, although Labour do appear to be closing the gap, according the latest polls: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7709961.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachael Revesz

Labour has gained in at least three polls just weeks before the general election, slashing the Tories' lead by as much as 10 points. Jeremy Corbyn’s party is up by four points in the last week to 30 per cent support, found Opinium, while a separate YouGov poll between 27 and 28 April found that Labour was up two points to 31 per cent – both figures contributing to a smaller gap between the Tories and the Opposition. A third poll for the Sunday Times showed the Tories had a 13-point lead with 44 percent of the vote, yet a YouGov poll gave the Tories a 23-point lead last week, showing a dip of 10 points.

---

Perhaps Corbyn has the momentum...

I read some details of that dinner, May comes off looking comically ignorant of the EU's position. There's genuine shock that the EU isn't prepared to let Brexit be a success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

It's hard to see anything other than a Tory victory at the minute, unfortunately, although Labour do appear to be closing the gap, according the latest polls:

---

Are we still trusting pollsters given their track record through Likud victory, Scottish Independence, Brexit, many of the Sanders v Clinton primaries, Trump as nominee, and Trump v Clinton?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyyW3sFXcAAg-0W.jpg

2015 and 2016 were anni horribiles for the polling profession... You'd hope to see massive changes in their analytics and methodologies before putting any significant stock in what they are telling us.

As you say Danny, I am finding it difficult to foresee anything other than a comfortable win for the Tories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

I read some details of that dinner, May comes off looking comically ignorant of the EU's position. There's genuine shock that the EU isn't prepared to let Brexit be a success.

---

Just seeing some further details of what was discussed at the dinner here: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/05/01...-about-brexit/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy Cliffe

EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. “Let us make Brexit a success” she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: “Brexit cannot be a success”.

May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May’s reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.

---

May really does come out of it badly; amateurish, by the sounds of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Are we still trusting pollsters given their track record through Likud victory, Scottish Independence, Brexit, many of the Sanders v Clinton primaries, Trump as nominee, and Trump v Clinton?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyyW3sFXcAAg-0W.jpg

2015 and 2016 were anni horribiles for the polling profession... You'd hope to see massive changes in their analytics and methodologies before putting any significant stock in what they are telling us.

As you say Danny, I am finding it difficult to foresee anything other than a comfortable win for the Tories.

---

I'd disagree with that. The pollsters have delivered exactly what they said they were delivering.

The polls in the run up to Brexit showed it being very tight. It ended up being very close.

The polling on the run up to the US election showed Clinton ahead nationally by between 1%-4%. She won the popular vote by 2.1%.

The problem wasn't in the polling. It was in how it was reported

That is one take alright. However, I would dispute many facets of it.

Almost all of the swing state polls were predicting Clinton victories of varying degrees to the extent that outlets such as CNN proclaimed that Trump had no path to victory. That is why Trumps victory shocked everyone. That is why Sanders victories in the primaries in States where polls were predicting comfortable Clinton wins shocked everyone. The media reported what the pollsters were saying.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...ist-explains-3

Quote:

---

But at the state level, the errors were extreme. The polling average in Wisconsin gave her a lead of more than five points; she is expected to lose it by two and a half. It gave Mr Trump a relatively narrow two-point edge in Ohio; he ran away with the state by more than eight. He trailed in Michigan and Pennsylvania by four, and looks likely to take both by about a point.

---

With respect to Brexit, the pollsters again got it wrong. True, they predicted a close call but most were predicting in and around a 4 point swing in favour of Stay. To the extent that Farage and other members of the Leave campaign conceded defeat on the day of the referendum.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/pollst...-brexit-2016-7

The companies that do this work do need to adjust how they are approaching these issues and ensuring that their bias and other factors are accounted for appropriately. As Jon Cohen, Chief Research Officer for SurveyMonkey said at the time of the Brexit result:

Quote:

---

"We have to learn from missteps that we've seen and Brexit is just the latest spur to get it right," he said. "But we just have to get it right, it's too important not to."

---

Anyway, I don't want to drag this thread too much further off topic. Apologies. Might be worth its own thread?

There was very little state level polling done by crebible polling companies in the US election though. With the national polls the way they were the focus was on places like Arizona and Georgia. Hard to say who to blame for that. The polling companies weren't polling them but they poll the places the media pay them to poll.

I was speaking to Bill White recently who runs lucidtalk polling in Belfast (he's had some excellent results).

He was saying that when Hillary was in Arizona the week before the election that Bill Clinton was going crackers behind the scene saying she needed to be in the rust belt.

Heh.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...psiavraxpr.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

He was saying that when Hillary was in Arizona the week before the election that Bill Clinton was going crackers behind the scene saying she needed to be in the rust belt.

---

My friend Joe Weisenthal from Bloomberg tweeted: In hell you are seated across from 2 people. One keeps saying Clinton lost because of Comey. The other keeps saying she didn't visit Wisconsin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrisLetang

My friend Joe Weisenthal from Bloomberg tweeted: In hell you are seated across from 2 people. One keeps saying Clinton lost because of Comey. The other keeps saying she didn't visit Wisconsin.

---

Surely there should be a guy saying Bernie would have beat him

An astonishing list of Theresa May's gaffes and (what should be) campaigning embarrassments so far here, yet "[a] recent general election poll found that an astounding 41% of respondents concluded that Theresa May is running a good campaign compared to 22% who thought it was going badly": http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.ie...ally-like.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Another Angry Voice

There is a significant demographic who like their politics slick, stage-managed and essentially meaningless, and they like their politicians spoting glib endlessly repeated platitudes rather than giving honest answers or detailed policy proposals.If this demographic didn't exist, ans wasn't pretty damned big, then the politicians obviously wouldn't do it would they?

There exists a very significant cohort of people who find actual political policy talk crushingly boring, but who can be easily won over by the endless repetition of familiar sounds.

---

Obama endorses that French Macaroons guy in stupid ad on French TV. What could possibly go wrong? And why are Macaroons so expensive? They're like 5 bucks each in some places. I like the pink ones.