https://www.theguardian.com/politics...lib-dem-yougov


BIB - just shows how little people knew about what they were voting for.

Of course, these polls are always 100% accurate, aren`t they ? A decision has been made, for better or worse and it now needs to be implemented as soon as possible. You make your choice and you live with the consequences. Another "Told you so" thread. Desperate or what?

Errrrrrrrrrrrr yeah but it's from the Guardian and being presented by one of our resident gloom mongers.

You can say this about anything.

After a Labour election win: "the public won't accept anything that makes them worse off"
After a Conservative win: "the public won't accept anything that makes them worse off"
After Remain win: "the public won't accept anything that makes them worse off"
After Leave win: "the public won't accept anything that makes them worse off"
After Tory/LibDem coalition: "the public won't accept anything that makes them worse off"

It's normal.

In practice the public will accept, it just has to be done right politically. Like austerity.

And so continues the downward trend of support for Brexit. I wouldn't like to be making decisions in government now.

So the only logical option is not to Brexit at all then. Glad to see people are finally waking up - let's hope it continues before article 50 is invoked.

How TF do you reach that conclusion?

Why would anyone ever be "willing to lose any money at all" in any situation at any time under any circumstances at all? What does this poll tell us other than people don't like to lose money? How is it in any way some deep astounding revolutionary shocka that people don't want to lose money on anything?

The poll asks if people are willing to tolerate some unspecified reduction in income or take a cost in furtherance of a long-term goal, and some people said yes, and I hope we can all see that this is not simply 'losing money' even if arguing that the cost is wasteful, unnecessary etc.

This polling business is brilliant. People pay you to ask the most awesomely stupid questions and then people pay you to use the results you got! They must be loving brexit.

FTFA: "Just one in 10 would be willing to lose more than £100 a month."
Was this from the poll just done or is this from that other poll which - as here - was widely misrepresented due to missing out the critical parts of the question asked, thereby entirely changing the meaning of the answer?

Whether it proves right or wrong to leave the EU the decision has been made. The problem I have at the moment is the constant accusation that people were not told leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market when David Cameron, George Osborne made it abundantly clear to the public that would be the case.

What hasn't been tested is proper examination on the EU side and if those countries who sell a great deal more to the UK than they import feel if the UK imposed tarrifs. On balance and looking historically at the EU position in agreeing deals with the world at large it does seem that Britain will be able to secure trading agreements with the rest of the world more easily. The reason it takes 7 years to agree a deal with Canada is 27 countries have to agree. Has it however prevented Canada selling goods to the EU or America or any other country outside of the EU?

The real problem though is the stance the EU continues to take with freedom of movement, it is a commendable idea but in practice doesn't work. There is no use saying that Britain doesn't need immigration, it does, much of our services especially the NHS would collapse without immigration but it should be better controlled and that will be a growing concern for many EU countries coping with the pressure of increasing numbers. If the EU had recognised this and implemented a policy where all EU countries including the UK could control numbers based on a countries ability to accomodate numbers we would never have had a referendum.

Errrrrr, silly me. Point made and noted for future reference.

Now where did I put that crystal ball.

May has reassured us that we'll be having a "red, white and blue Brexit" so everything is clear now and will be fine.

The referendum result wasn't a mutual suicide pact. If it becomes clear that we will be significantly worse off then we should reconsider.

Indeed, a skewed question in a "poll" conducted by the Remain campaign.

Who paid for the poll?

The Manchester Gaurdian is a tax avoiding gutter rag much worse than the Daily Mail because the DM does have some good articles from time to time, Tim Farron is a ****wit who is totally untrustworthy and a parasite on the boil of the butt of humanity.

If Farron was around at the birth of Jesus and one of the three wise men I reckon he would have brought despair rather than gold.

It was a democratic exercise to ascertain the will of the people and now we know what that is, the government must implement it. Being in the EU does not protect us from world events. Take the financial crisis of 2007/8 for example. Look outside the EU bubble, there is a big, wide world out there who are eager to trade without political integration.

We were all pretty much made worse off in 2008 by the financial crash - which was presumably entirely down to our EU membership. The economy goes up and down for lots of factors and will do so in the future whether we are in the EU or not.

In the end People need to consider the long term benefits over the short term impacts - something as a country which generally on so many issues like the deficit, the NHS and social care and pensions we are totally failing to do.

As for these endless polls - did remain win by 10 per cent as the final published on 23 June suggested? Ask the right question and you can get any answer you want in a poll!

Indeed. Now it's a shame that Brexit is bad in both the short and long terms, isn't it.

Ah so you've got the crystal ball.

I don't consider it good policy to drive the country into a concrete barrier because of ideology and "things might be better".

If 2016 shows anything it's that consensus predictions don't always work out.

Three of the four nations with the highest GDP per head in Europe are not in the EU. If the EU is so good for the economy why are the richest nations in Europe not members?

Worth reminding the OP and others of the growth in personal and national debt since 1973 and the erosion of the paypacket over the past several years.

So Tim Farron is a ****wit who would have been one of the Wise Men?

Sounds like typical muddled Brexit "Have our cake and eat it" type thinking.

Oil revenues, hiding people's money and being a rich person's tax haven are not things the UK is particularly good at, nor is it likely to be.

Well, maybe we're okay at being a tax haven to some people - but we actually have to pay for public services somehow (since more than 10 people live here)

Yeah, the bikini body articles are particularly good, and the baby bump bikini body articles are highly intellectual.

Nice leap of imagination you have there, now would you mind doing something useful that the Guardian hasn't and pinpoint precisely which poll this nugget of possible nonsense comes from. I can't find it via a google or Yougov search, so I assume it's a minor question buried in some other poll. Before you dig it out for me (us) you might want to entertain yourself with this other Yougov offering:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/03...are-stuck-den/


Indeed James (as above) however the Guardian says a Remain group and another link I just saw denied that (reddit I think it was). I'd like to see who commissioned it, the sample size, the whole poll and all it's questions, the specific wording for the question the OP's beloved Guardian is reporting on etc... (the Guardian does usually link to the actual poll details, but not in this case).