ICM put out their weekly EU online poll today. Topline figures were REMAIN 45%, LEAVE 45%, DON’T KNOW 10% and tabs are here. ICM have tended to produce some of the most leave figures and the neck-and-neck result actually follows on from a series of polls showing a small leave lead, but this is due to a change in methodology.

As is often the case, ICM’s poll is actually less interesting than Martin Boon’s commentary that accompanies it – Martin’s response to the polling errors of last year has been one of the most candid and interesting of the pollsters, if occasionally one of the most pessimistic. In his article today he writes about what he considers to be the bleak future for phone polling given how people use the telephone these days, but also writes about the problems ICM have encountered moving most of their EU referendum polling to online.

Specifically Martin writes about how when ICM set online surveys live on Friday nights they get a rush of fast respondents that are skewed towards Leave. These entirely fill some of the demographic quotas set for the poll, meaning there is no room for the slower responding Remain respondents. To tackle this ICM have made two changes – one is to their sampling (they will spread it across the whole weekend, rather than opening it fully on Friday), the other is to weight respondents by how quickly they respond. According to Martin’s commentary the overall effect of this is to improve Remain’s relative position by four points.

I should point out (as Martin does in his article) that this is very much an issue to do with the way ICM carry out their online polls. Other online companies won’t necessarily do things the same way or face the same issues. I can only speak confidently about YouGov’s systems, but I know YouGov’s don’t invite respondents to specific surveys, they have a system that sends invites to respondents automatically, ensuring a constant flow of respondents into YouGov’s system. This means when people click on their invite (be it immediately, after a few hours, or days later) they are sent into whatever YouGov surveys are open at the time and need someone matching their demographics – hence when YouGov surveys go live they get a mixture of both fast respondents and slower respondents, who may have actually been invited before the survey was even written.

There was also a new contribution to the ongoing mystery of the gap between online and telephone polls on the EU referendum, this time from Prof Pat Sturgis (the Chair of the recent BPC/MRS inquiry into the polling error) and Prof Will Jennings (who served on the inquiry). It can be read in full here, but Pat and Will conclude that “While there are of course many caveats required here, this comparison suggests that the true picture may lie somewhere between the two modes, possibly somewhat closer to online. At the very least it suggests a good deal of caution is needed before concluding that one method is right and the other wrong. That will only be known for sure on June 24.”


439 Responses to “ICM – Remain and Leave level pegging, and dealing with fast respondents”

1 7 8 9
  1. “EU referendum poll:
    Remain: 44% (-1)
    Leave: 47% (+2)
    (via ICM, online)

    EU referendum poll:
    Remain: 42% (-5)
    Leave: 45% (+6)
    (via ICM, phone)
    Very interesting”

    Anthony did a post a while back on polling during a bank holiday weekend. These can be unreliable because the ABs are away for the weekend. We know the better off tend to support remain so this might have affected the result.

  2. PETE B
    Carfrew
    “I’m in complete agreement with your last few posts. Well put”
    ________

    Yeah he has been doing quite well over the past few weeks. Don’t say anything negative about the public sector though….we might lose him. ;-)

  3. BIGD

    Two Big polls and both heading towards Brexit. probably explains why Cameron was sharing a bed with the London Mayor over the weekend.

  4. Alun

    Regrettably you have dragged me back into the debate by, Wrongly quoting what I said to suit your own angry little mind

    . I said on page 6,

    “….. Personally I think remainers are naive for believing that 50 million Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians & Romanians and the rest, will not change the UK into something unrecognisable within a generation. And they will all flock to the UK just as soon as they can, make no mistake.”

    You now quote that as a reference solely against Turks. Read my quote properly and you will see that I referred to four specific countries by name followed by the phrase, “and the rest”.

    If it is not clear to you that that is a reference to the uncontrolled migration we get as a member of the eu, then you are denser than I thought. For clarity, let me spell it out. I am not against migration per se but I am totally against uncontrolled migration. We should have a points system and it should be rigorously applied, so that immigrants can be assimilated into the fabric of the country, including our western way of life, encapsulating respect for other religions and none, women and all minorities. When they flood in that cannot and does not, happen.

    Of course as soon as you introduced the “dog whistle”, phrase, you lost the argument. It’s the answer to everything that concerns the people, which you lefties don’t want to discuss. Labour used it constantly when they were in government to shut down the debate by accusing anyone who mentioned the word, immigration, as a racist.

    Incidentally a generation is generally accepted to be 25/30 years, although I stand by my assertion that Turkey will be in the eu in 10 for the reasons that I and others have already mentioned.

  5. @Alun

    Various governments have agreed to wholesale Treaty changes that failed to happinate a good many. If the Government decided to ratify some change, perhaps ushered in as some emergency response to the migration crisis, what’s the mechanism for stopping this? Esp. if our govt. decides to embrace it…

    How would you stop what happened to Italy or Greece?

    And can you really give a cast iron guarantee they won’t find a way to route around existing rules if they really want? How come you don’t engage with the point about breaching the rules on the surplus etc.

    One notes also that rather than deal with the issues Alec raised, you just asked him to clarify what he WASN’T saying. Far from ideal…

    There may be a difference in how likely the revoking of devolution is compared with the accession thing, but this doesn’t change the idea of considering worst case scenarios.

  6. “Two Big polls and both heading towards Brexit. probably explains why Cameron was sharing a bed with the London Mayor over the weekend.”

    The ICM Polls were only released about an hour ago – hence the sudden fall in the value of sterling this afternoon.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/currency/11/12/intraday.stm

  7. Alun
    Regrettably you have dragged me back into the debate by, Wrongly quoting what I said in your later discussion with Alec.

    . I said on page 6,

    “….. Personally I think remainers are naive for believing that 50 million Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians & Romanians and the rest, will not change the UK into something unrecognisable within a generation. And they will all flock to the UK just as soon as they can, make no mistake.”

    You now quote that as a reference solely against Turks. Read my quote properly and you will see that I referred to four specific countries by name followed by the phrase, “and the rest”.

    It should be clear that that is a reference to the uncontrolled migration we get as a member of the eu. For clarity, let me spell it out. I am not against migration per se but I am totally against uncontrolled migration. We should have a points system and it should be rigorously applied, so that newcomers can be assimilated into the fabric of the country, including our western way of life, encapsulating respect for other religions and none, women and all minorities, etc, etc.

    When there is no control, that cannot and does not, happen.
    Of course as soon as you introduced the “dog whistle”, phrase, you lost the argument. It’s the answer to everything that concerns the people, which people on the left don’t want to discuss. Labour used it constantly when they were in government to shut down the debate by accusing anyone who mentioned the word, immigration, as a r****t

    Incidentally a generation is generally accepted to be 25/30 years, although I stand by my assertion that Turkey will be in the eu in 10 for the reasons that I and others have already mentioned.

  8. @Alun

    In the Mori issue tracker, Immigration has become the number one issue, ahead even of the economy.

    Part of the reason people may keep voting for parties that don’t do much about it may be a lack of choice among the main players. But also, electoral promises get broken…

    But of course, there may be many who don’t mind immigration in principle, they mind how it’s handled, or isn’t handled…

  9. “The ICM Polls were only released about an hour ago – hence the sudden fall in the value of sterling this afternoon”
    _______

    Yes… I’m confident post Brexit the markets will settle down but personally as an individual voter I’m not voting on what the spivs and speculators have to say. I’m sure the same markets we were told would go loopy if ol Corby got into office and I didn’t pay much attention to that dire warning then.

  10. @Alun009 –
    “ALEC:
    If you look to page 6 of these comments, May 29th 6:07pm, you can see where Robert Newark said exactly those words I am quoting. That is what I responding to. I am aware that you didn’t say it, but my question stands: …..”

    Thankyou for the clarification. In general on these forums, I tend to suggest that specific points raised about specific posts are addressed to the author, to avoid confusion. If you want a third party to give a view on posts, best to state clearly that you are asking X for a view on Y’s post.

    I’m going to refrain from getting involved in your discussion with @Robert Newark – he’s a big boy and can handle himself, and I note that he rejects your characterisation of what he said.

  11. I very much hope Remain prevails, in large part because I think most things that trouble or harm people today will get worse with Whitehall in complete charge. The EU is a useful break in many respects, a major boost for the country as a whole — for regions of the UK away from London that simply can’t get anything for economic development or jobs or infrastructure from the UK government but instead have benefited greatly from EU grants; for scientific and academic research that the UK government neglects but the EU funds; for financial service regulation that the UK government sweeps under the carpet but the EU attends to, often in close cooperation with the American Securities and Exchange Commission. Brexit is a means for London-based political interests and financial services to completely take over parts of UK governance they don’t control. Calling other countries fantastically corrupt is a bit rich for the least transparent of the world’s major financial service economies; and without EU oversight, transparency will be further harmed and it will be easier, and more rewarding, for banks and stock traders to buy off increasingly weak UK regulators.

    Furthermore, check out most features of bureaucratic dysfunction, and you won’t find Eurocrats at the root of them — you will find Whitehall civil service mandarins. Ludicrous dairy regulations that have reduced British dairy farmers’ ranks by two-thirds? Domestically imposed, not the EU. The war against wooden cutting boards at butchers and creameries that has resulted in bacteria-laden plastic boards taking their place? Another Whitehall pig-in-a-poke blamed wrongly on the EU. The enforced middlemen like “rolling stock companies” that inflate the costs of British rail transport? Again, domestic, not EU. The one thing about the privatised railway that actually lowers costs, open access, which at least provides for competition on some routes and has helped moved a lot of heavy freight from the roads back on to rail? Well, that’s an EU regulation, not UK. The EU provides balance — a separation of powers that keeps government honest and still is answerable to Britain. Brexit amounts to a blank cheque for Whitehall to do stupid and evil things motivated by civil service groupthink, cozy old-boy networks, and a London-centred bias.

  12. @NeilJ – re Turkey, Germany and France were extremely keen to volte face and concede visa free travel, as they are facing internal crises from voters unhappy at the current migrant crisis. Turkish accession is back on the agenda, no doubt, but which way this will go is anyone’s guess, as the current deal is on the brink of collapse anyway and the visa free travel implementation has been delayed. This in itself is cause for concern, as we can expect Turkey to use the migrant crisis to it’s own advantage.

    However, it’s a rather sterile and pointless debate to discuss if, when or whether Turkey may or may not join the EU. For me, the pertinent debate is much more whether we want Turkey to join, or less specifically, what limits we see to EU expansion.

    I’m uncertain that a continued march eastwards for the EU boundary is sensible. We are already embroiled in difficulties with Russia, and the long term stability of Turkey is not a given, with both the Syrian and Kurdish conflicts very much in play.

    This comes back to my central anxiety about the EU, in that, unlike a normal national boundary, there are no philosophical or territorial limits placed on it’s ambitions. Unlike a nation state, which has clear physical and legal boundaries, we don’t know for certain when and where the EU will stop, as this is not written down anywhere in the treaties.

    If the EU could agree to fixed limits to it’s ambitions, and then get on with delivering on those ambitions properly, while finding ways to happily engage with those neighbours deemed beyond the limits of the EU orbit, then I think more people might be content to support it.

  13. Anthony’s comment about previous weekend polling:

    “Both polls were carried out over the bank holiday weekend and they are notorious for producing rather strange samples (many readers will remember the Populus tracker poll from the last election which carried on over a bank holiday weekend immediately before election day and produced a ridiculously large Labour lead because of a strange bank holiday sample).”

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1024

  14. I meant “bank holiday weekend polling”.

  15. I don’t have the time or energy to make multiple posts reiterating the same point like some people on here, but I just wanted to try and put some logic into the arguments on Turkey (+++Albania etc etc etc).
    First the argument was “there is no veto”… Then it became clear this was a lie so it moved onto “the British government cannot be trusted so they will not use their veto”

    Well, I have some sympathy with the idea that the British government can’t be trusted – it is why I like the EC and the European Court as a check on their activity that the British electorate seems incapable of exercising, but lets look at what happens if the Brexiteers have their way. The first thing the British parliament (which contains a built-in majority of remainers thanks in part to our undemocratic electoral system) will have to do is negotiate a new trade treaty with the EU. If this is to be done quickly and in a favourable way to British Industry that will require freedom of movement in return, so the likelihood is that Parliament will agree to that (MUCH more likely than agreeing to Turkish entry, in my view). Indeed we might even face pressure to join the Schengen area, like Norway. So then if Turkey does become a member (unlikely) all those Turks will presumably “flock” to Britain anyway.

    The other complete red herring is visa free travel… Most of south America has visa free travel to the UK (while Turkey will not, in fact, even if they get it to the Schengen area). It is nothing to do with immigration

  16. James E

    “The ICM Polls were only released about an hour ago – hence the sudden fall in the value of sterling this afternoon.”

    Just as well I decided to transfer some cash to the USA this morning! (I usually mistime these deals :-( )

  17. I’m for ‘remain’ (just), but if I were trying to make the argument for leave, I’d play the ‘greasy-palmed Continentals’ card over ‘immigration’ and would specifically target Luxembourg’s 700 million euro annual EU SURPLUS. The richest country in the EU per capita receives over a billion a year from the EU but only pays in 300 million. Aren’t the transfers supposed to be from the richer countries to the poorer ones? Since the UK contributes 12% of the total EU budget, this implies that irrespective of what each country may or may not ultimately get out of it, the UK taxpayer is currently paying 100 million Euros annually to the good people of Luxembourg. If Mr Junkers were asked to explain this he might well end up sounding a lot like some one from FIFA. (Caveat: I have no evidence to support my gut feeling that this would be effective, but ‘fairness’ always strikes a chord)

  18. @Andrew111

    “Well, I have some sympathy with the idea that the British government can’t be trusted – it is why I like the EC and the European Court as a check on their activity that the British electorate seems incapable of exercising […]”

    Would it be mean to paraphrase this as “I am frustrated by the results democracy brings, so I want the EU to shield me from it”?

    ;)

  19. CARFREW:
    “In the Mori issue tracker, Immigration has become the number one issue, ahead even of the economy. Part of the reason people may keep voting for parties that don’t do much about it may be a lack of choice among the main players.”

    Quite. Which is why I was careful to stipulate past elections. Opinion polling about social attitudes are well and good but we know it doesn’t always translate to the ballot box.

    As for the lack of choice, I concur. That is, I believe, a function of the (Westminster) electoral system. But, again, if you take the 2015 election, *something* drew people to vote Tory despite the broken promise on immigration. That implies that the broken promise didn’t mean that much, or something meant much more. It might even have be the prospect of a referendum! I’ll leave it to others to decide why people voted Tory, as I’m sure there are some good studies that people have read (I haven’t).

  20. ROGER MEXICO

    Thanks-hadn’t appreciated that the G was part of the snobbish Oxbridge Ruling Elite.

    That explains everything.-presumably they will be closed down by the Peoples Press Control Squads in due course , and their bourgeoise piles at Oxford & Cambridge reduced to rubble like Palmyra ?

  21. I was asked to provide some evidence of ‘Net’ contributions, short of ‘proof’.
    Unfortunately this is incredibly difficult owing to the complexity of the UK tax and benefit systems, and also (deliberate) lack of statistical information on migrant earnings.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10638283/How-much-we-give-the-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

    It would appear that to be a net contributor (in 2014) you would need to be earning somewhere around £35 – 38 K

    Anything under that and you are a ‘scrounger’ !

    On top of this though there don’t appear to be any official figures available to accurately determine the amount of money EU nationals working in the UK are sending back to their home countries, especially as much may be criminally gained and not visible to the authorities.

  22. “Various governments have agreed to wholesale Treaty changes that failed to happinate a good many… what’s the mechanism for stopping this?”

    Well, we do now have an act that means if more power were to go to Brussels, it would have to pass a referendum first. Of course, playing Devil’s advocate, you could say that a government could repeal the legislation and sign up for something anyway. The fact is, the government can largely do what it likes. Especially in emergency times: there was no general election from 1935 until 1945 because of one particular emergency. But once again, this ought to be something that I am called upon to defend. It is the Brexit camp that believe that Westminster is best able to represent us, and that belief is not contingent on the electoral reform that people like me belief are so urgently needed. The UK government, in its present form, has a huge amount of power. If that power (such as the power to circumvent its own rules on hold a referendum before handing more power to the EU) makes you queasy, then you aren’t alone. But leaving the EU doesn’t change that level of control one jot. Ultimately, we can’t stop the government doing what it wants.

    It would be helpful to use a (slightly silly) analogy here. The idea that the “what’s to stop them” argument is an argument against being in the EU is formally the same as the following argument:
    The UK government has the power to nuke the Dalai Lama. Wherever he is, whatever he’s doing, theoretically, the PM could launch an all out nuclear assault on His Holiness. It doesn’t seem likely, and it doesn’t seem wise, but it COULD. Therefore, we should rid ourselves of all nuclear weapons. After all, we have no mechanism for stopping our government using the power of the atom to lay waste to Tenzin Gyatso and all who might be within 50 miles of him. God forbid he’s near an allotment when this goes up; UKPR would be empty.

    You see, at some point you have to either accept that a government has the power to do certain things, OR you have to become an anarchist, OR you can accept that some major constitutional reform is needed to lock in our rights to stop the government doing certain things (but even then…?)

  23. @Thoughtful

    You seem to being making a big effort to find evidence to prove the case you made.

    Are you sure there is a deliberate lack of statistical information on migrant earnings, and much of the money sent abroad may be criminally gained and so is therefore not visible to the authorities?

    Maybe your hypothesis just isn’t correct? No matter how much you try, a four legged beast with two humps isn’t horse, no matter how much you wish it.

  24. @Alun

    Well, something drew only a quarter of those eligible to vote Tory. Which is not a huge amount, and the reason it saw them in power is in significant part because opposition vote was split. And part of the reason for the split is immigration of course.

    It isn’t necessarily the case that immigration is that big a deal for all those who voted Tory. And because these people may have assets, preserving assets may be a bigger deal for some of them anyway. I mention preserving assets As an example, because it isn’t necessarily the sort of thing to come up on an issue tracker…

    Regarding the point that the government can do what it wants, sure, but we can then vote for a change and replace them. In the EU, we can only vote out our own representatives and since they are such a minority, that’s rather limited in effect, as you celebrated earlier.

  25. @Alun

    Regarding the Dalai Llama thing…

    …well firstly, I am not arguing to leave the EU. I am just seeking clarification on particular aspects of the discussion.

    But anyway, your idea only has some traction if you consider the Dalai Llama issue in isolation. Which isn’t much use, becuz in reality, the issue of whether to keep such a deterrent is dependent on numerous factors and the Dalai Llama angle might well wind up being overridden by other concerns, such as the benefits of a deterrent.

  26. @Popeye
    Yes, I am frustrated that many people in Britain seem to think it is “democracy” when a government can be elected on 37% of the votes cast.

    Most European countries are far more democratic than the UK so I am OK for the representatives of those countries (the Council of Ministers, the Commission appointed by those democracies, and the European parliament elected by PR) to try and restrain the serial idiocies of the remote (from me) and elite-ridden British government…

  27. @ Allan Christie

    ” I’m sure the same markets we were told would go loopy if ol Corby got into office and I didn’t pay much attention to that dire warning then.”

    This doesn’t make sense.

    Sterling has dropped by more than 1.5 cents since 3pm today to 1.447, on the news of the ICM polls. Regardless of whether there were any ‘dire warnings’, and I certainly don’t remember any, the same clearly did not happen when Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader. In fact the pound was at around 1.54 then, and for the next few months. And a weakened pound clearly has immediate consequences for anyone who travels or does business abroad.

  28. I would be very interested to know what bloggers thought about the following. Does anyone really know who’s ‘winning’ at present in this referendum? In GE’s the main parties have very high quality feedback from canvasing in their key constituencies. But in the EU referendum both sides are getting very limited feed back from the ground. Remains ground campaign appears to be non existent in terms of canvasing? whilst leave would seem to have some data, but small and patchy when its spread over 650 constituencies? Opinion polls are split and the betting market has failed to predict at least the last two GE’s outcomes. One recent write up on a poll showing a big remain lead claimed that the numbers were supported by Remains ‘private polling’ – what private polling would that be? Polls are expensive and both sides have very limited funds? So is everyone flying blind? views please

  29. Catmanjeff
    I only provided the available evidence because I was asked to!

    Statistics on crime are deliberately not collected, this has been going on for a long time now, so there’s no data on the amount EU nationals have been committing, we can only go off reports in the news, which isn’t the most reliable way.

    It should worry people that this is happening, yet because they don’t know about it they aren’t.

    Of course if you have proof to the contrary then I’d be glad to hear it.

  30. “The first thing the British parliament (which contains a built-in majority of remainers thanks in part to our undemocratic electoral system) will have to do is negotiate a new trade treaty with the EU. If this is to be done quickly and in a favourable way to British Industry that will require freedom of movement in return, so the likelihood is that Parliament will agree to that (MUCH more likely than agreeing to Turkish entry, in my view).”

    ———–

    Well yes, this is one of the things which makes it tricky. To what extent do we get stuff foisted on us if we stay in the EU, vs stuff foisted on us if we leave?

  31. @Thoughtful

    You want me provide evidence that there is no evidence?

    Mmmm.

    I’d better stop here, as my logic circuits might start to bend ;-)

  32. BIGD – “Anthony did a post a while back on polling during a bank holiday weekend. These can be unreliable because the ABs are away for the weekend.”

    True.

    But ICM also released a voting intention poll: Con 36 (+2) Lab 31 (-1) Lib 7 (-) UKIP 17 (-) GRN 4 (-)

    ABs tend to be Tories. So if that poll doesn’t include them, there has been a helluva shift to Conservative (probably due to immigration) from the non-ABs. All this in the midst of a Tory civil war.

    If Lab were honest with themselves they’ll admit they should have chosen Liz Kendall (or Yvette Cooper). But I guess they are still in denial…

  33. After the British referendum there are a number of other countries looking the same way Also Poland is very upset about EU sanctions, supported by Hungary.

    It might have been unthinkable the French and Dutch would even consider referenda, but such is the sheer arrogance of the unaccountable administration that they are driving countries to hold them.

    It doesn’t seem to have been discussed much, but if the UK votes to leave, others might well follow, and the whole European project, collapse. It would perhaps be replaced by what most would agree would be more desirable, a trading community, without all the social politicising.

  34. Thoughtful

    Re your final paragraph.

    We can but hope.

  35. @Zippy
    Well, I’m a remain canvasser and the sessions I’ve been involved in have been overwhelmingly positive for remain.
    Does that mean anything? Very little, for a number of reasons.

    First off, we have nothing to compare it with: normally n canvassing you have some history of what the bleeders did before (or at least what they say they did). By definition, that’s not available this time.

    Secondly, we’re concentrating on areas where we think they’ll be remainers, because this is primarily a GOTV operation. So if we’re knocking on doors that we think say remain, and that’s what it says on the other side of the door, it merely confirms our prejudice

    Having said that, whenever I go out I come back feeling reassured.

    Oh, and we’re actually getting more feet on the street than we did in the London elections even though some of our lot are off with the other remain campaign.

  36. CARFREW:
    “the issue of whether to keep such a deterrent is dependent on numerous factors and the Dalai Llama angle might well wind up being overridden by other concerns, such as the benefits of a deterrent.”

    Quite. That’s rather the point of my analogy. Scrapping Trident on the basis of the Dalai Lama argument would be idiotic; even though it’s a theoretical danger, it’s not going to happen. So with Turkish membership.

  37. ALUN009
    That’s so clever; planting the spurious idea that Turkish entry into the EU is as unlikely as the Dalai Lama getting and using a nuclear bomb, and then running with it to develop a flawed argument.

    My guess is that even if you could get odds of 100 to one on the former — which I very much doubt you could, and which just a year or so ago would have made it fifty times more likely than Leicester winning the EPL — this would still be lower than those on a ‘Lama-bomb’ by a factor of about a million. :)

  38. @Alun

    We went through all this sort of thing during the Indy ref.

    E.g. The idea that oil prices might crash was dismissed as scaremongering.

    That idea it was just fearmongering was so comprehensively trashed by events that many Indy peeps dare not even consider oil prices any more.

    But the essence of my argument, which you keep dodging, transcends the Turkish issue.

    My point, which you haven’t even tried to challenge, because it’s not possible to challenge it, is that the EU has the capability to visit various things upon us we might not want, or even anticipate, and has the ability to not only circumvent rules but change them. And we don’t have much power to resist being I such a minority.

    Something you seem to celebrate, but neither Greece nor Italy prolly envisaged what was gonna be visited upon them, and they prolly aren’t celebrating.

    And that isn’t scaremongering, or some million-to-one unlikelihood. This stuff actually happens. Like all the immigration happened.

  39. “That’s so clever; planting the spurious idea that Turkish entry into the EU is as unlikely as the Dalai Lama getting and using a nuclear bomb, and then running with it to develop a flawed argument.”

    ——–

    Oh yeah, that’s business as usual, arguing from false premises.

    E.g. The idea there’s a mandate for another referendum because of promises to stay in the EU when actually they indicated an intent to offer a referendum to leave.

    Or that 3% significantly exercised by EU issue constitutes a mandate.

    Or the idea oil prices are now irrelevant because the referendum rejected Independence.

    Or the idea that just because I might take issue with a particular aspect, that I must therefore be against Scots Independence or for Brexit.

    Etc. etc.

1 7 8 9