Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually you'll see that out of 4 selection criteria immigration only came first in 40%. 60% of leavers primary motivation of only four options was not immigration. With a less restricted set of options Immigration as the primary reason may easily switch between either sovereignty or EU payments, or something else entirely not given as an option.
Since there were only 4 options to choose just by random chance 25% would select immigration as the primary reason to leave, So Immigration was only 15% above background too.
One thing that's interesting is remainers chose immigration as the primary reason leavers voted leave as a majority ~55%, which might explain more why people think immigration was the issue, not that it was the issue.
I think that survey is pretty busted to be honest (I do data science in a professional capacity) it's too narrowly scripted to derive real intent, and there are better mechanisms than ranking the options with such a narrow group of options, like select all that apply, which turns out more organic rankings, as there is the hidden option of no selections.
Funnily enough I just base it on people I have spoken to at different times and in different places over the past few years in the UK.
I don't visit the North or Wales that much where I imagine immigration would be a much greater priority ( because that's where a lot of them go ).
But for most people I met - and it's not an objective survey - it's more of a gut feeling that faced with the choice they think that overall Britain and they would be better off going it alone.
It's hard to define that feeling except that it's a combination of factors.
You voted on remain on gut feel, you felt the economics authorities were right, you felt that the scares of shortages of necessities were accurate, you felt that the lack of a higher authority over the UK Government is a larger risk than that higher authority acting counter to your needs. Probably another several things too.
You never actually did the economic analysis to determine for yourself that the economic authorities presenting projections with high degrees of confidence, you never analyzed the logistics chains and origins of the necessities at risk of shortage to see if the claims are valid, you never read UK law and precedent to determine that an unsupervised UK Government had limits on what it can do, nor did you read EU law to determine what limits are on them, nor read history to apply lessons of the past on this scenario.
Unless you did these things, you voted with your gut at best, at worst you voted based on trust of some external influencers, who in truth used your vote attempting to further their agenda, which is neither good nor bad, but it is their agenda.
So don't disparage voters who used precisely the same method you did for choosing a position, which was which option felt safer, based on trust relationships you have with your sources. This also applies equally to both sides who voted, both remain and leave, unless you did a lot of complex analysis, and if you don't know you did the analysis (doing some isn't enough, thinking you did isn't enough, if you did not spend several weeks prior to voting dedicated to the analysis it wasn't enough) you definitely didn't.
I think we can safely say that the vast bulk of academia, industry, business, unions and leaders in all sorts of sectors from the arts to scientific research that will be directly affected by Brexit have more credibility on the subject than Rupert Murdoch, the editorial teams of the Daily Express and Daily Mail, and various nefarious and shady social media campaigns which is where most of the anti EU misinformation and propaganda came from for years before the vote and which leave voters seemed to lap up unthinkingly.
I think we can safely say that the vast bulk of academia, industry, business, unions and leaders in all sorts of sectors from the arts to scientific research that will be directly affected by Brexit have more credibility on the subject than Rupert Murdoch, the editorial teams of the Daily Express and Daily Mail, and various nefarious and shady social media campaigns which is where most of the anti EU misinformation and propaganda came from for years before the vote and which leave voters seemed to lap up unthinkingly.
The same experts who predicted an immediate recession and hundreds of thousands of job losses just on a Leave vote alone ?
And you're not still plugging that nonsense that 17.4 million people were influenced by " various nefarious and shady social media campaigns " ?
That's almost as bad as Labour's current " we fought a brilliant election on great policies " delusion.
Thanks for the lolz though ... the full Brexit Bingo.
Can you actually quote where those experts actually said that? Or are you going on the misleading reports in the media about what they said?
Another one unable to distinguish news from propaganda it seems...
I don't make any apology for listening to leading figures in scientific research rather than Sun reporters if I want to find out about the possible effects of Brexit on scientific research sector. I don't make any apology for listening to people in the theatre and music industries with direct experience of how those industries work rather than a Daily Mail headline of I want to understand how that sector will be affected. I don't make any apology for listening to people with direct knowledge and experience of NHS staffing rather than anonymous Facebook campaigns if I want to understand how the NHS would be affected.
It's just a simple fact that some sources are more knowledgable and reliable than others, if leave voters are 'fed up with experts' and would rather listen to those who have no clue about the topics they are commenting on, or worse actively seek to manipulate and mislead, then that is their problem, but it does not mean that the source is equally credible just because a lot of people are taken in by what they are saying.
I think we can safely say that the vast bulk of academia, industry, business, unions and leaders in all sorts of sectors from the arts to scientific research that will be directly affected by Brexit have more credibility on the subject than Rupert Murdoch, the editorial teams of the Daily Express and Daily Mail, and various nefarious and shady social media campaigns which is where most of the anti EU misinformation and propaganda came from for years before the vote and which leave voters seemed to lap up unthinkingly.
Yes based on the trust relationships you have with your sources.
Once again you appeal to your fervent belief in all things you consider an authority. The Guardian is no different to the Express or Mail, Unions are no different to any politician. You trust your sources its patently clear from you post, and you completely blew your credibility by focusing on the leave side, the same issue applies to remain, but your cognitive bias keeps you warm that your sources are the only sources that are trustworthy.
You're even projecting because you think its directed at remain, but it's just an observation of the political process in general. So your claims that its propaganda are unfounded.
I think given your batting average you think the scientific method is on page 78 of the Kama Sutra.
Can you actually quote where those experts actually said that? Or are you going on the misleading reports in the media about what they said?
.
Yes, I can actually.
Would you accept HM Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as experts ?
In May 2016 both claimed that a Leave vote would lead to an " immediate and profound economic shock."
They said within two years there would be an increase in unemployment of 500,000 and wages would decrease by 2.8%.
You can read it all here. https://www.gov.uk/government/public...leaving-the-eu
Yes based on the trust relationships you have with your sources.
Once again you appeal to your fervent belief in all things you consider an authority. The Guardian is no different to the Express or Mail, Unions are no different to any politician. You trust your sources its patently clear from you post, and you completely blew your credibility by focusing on the leave side, the same issue applies to remain, but your cognitive bias keeps you warm that your sources are the only sources that are trustworthy.
You're even projecting because you think its directed at remain, but it's just an observation of the political process in general. So your claims that its propaganda are unfounded.
I think given your batting average you think the scientific method is on page 78 of the Kama Sutra.
This view that all sources have equal credibility and its just a matter of picking the one you like best, no source
being objectively better than another, they are all the same seems to stem from the same school of thought that everybody should get a prize for participation on school sports day. When it comes to effects of Brexit on NHS staffing then the view of the head of NHS recruitment is more credible than the musings of 'Fat Bob down the Dog and Duck' on the subject. Sorry but that is just fact, there's no getting away from that.
Yes, I can actually.
Would you accept HM Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as experts ?
In May 2016 both claimed that a Leave vote would lead to an " immediate and profound economic shock."
They said within two years there would be an increase in unemployment of 500,000 and wages would decrease by 2.8%.
You can read it all here. https://www.gov.uk/government/public...leaving-the-eu
That scenario didn't actually happen, we didn't leave within two years of the vote with no deal and there were monetary measures taken to stabilise the economy while the model was looking at what would happen in the absence of those measures. Of course if the assumptions in the model change then the outcomes change, it doesn't mean the model was wrong if those assumptions had been what the government actually did during the Brexit process.
Even so, while you mention that wage growth is currently at 3.9% you completely fail to mention (surprise, surprise) that we did indeed suffer several years of real terms falls in wages after the leave vote directly due to the tanking pound causing inflation to rise, with the tanking pound being directly caused by the Leave vote.
Also economic growth did fall dramatically following the vote as investment collapsed. Just before the vote the UK was the fastest growing country in the G7, it then fell to being the second slowest growing of those countries and is still languishing near the bottom of the table.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
