The U.K. has moved on from Brexit.

M0nica

I do not want to go into all the maths and tsatistics that goes into the chocie of sample size, how it is done and the degrees of confidence to be selected, but I can assure you that if the sample is properly randomised or stratified then remarkably accurate results can be gt from quite a small sample.

That’s a good explanation, but 55% of a p^
is still not 55% of the people of Great Britain.

That’s like claiming that a larger percentage of people think we should have remained in the EU than actually voted remain.

It’s 55% of that sample and it should say so.

Even the statisticians and advisers claim that remarkably accurate results can be gt from quite a small sample is unverifiable unless you have the results from a full survey.

It’s 55% of that sample and it should say so, without any implication that the GBP would not understand properly randomised or stratified sample.

I am sorry Molliego You are not correct many tests have been done using numerous random samples to show that 90% plus will be within a certain limit of the population.

I am not a mathematician, but I have studied statistics both theoretically and used them in my work. The proof that these samples are reliable is there.

But in this specific case, so many different people have conducted so many surveys on all kinds of basis over 5 plus years and the vast majority have shown that the majority of people in the UK are in favour of Britain being in the EU. The majority in the referendum was so wafer thin, that even if the referendum had been run the following day as well, enough people could have changed their minds over night or not voted one day but voted the next, for the majority to have been wafer this on the other side.

The whole conduct of the referendum from start to finish was a disgrace. Had the whole thing been properly organised and properly argued, whichever side won, would have had a clear and proper mandate.

The other question, which no one has tried to answer, is how long should the results of a referendum by binding 5 years? 10 years?, 50 years? Since we had the referendum.

Since the referendum was held roughly 6 million people in the UK have died, the majority of voting age and 7 million young people have reached voting age.

Personally, I think a 10 year mandate for a referendum is quite sufficient. Why should we be governed by the dead from beyond the grave?

You are not correct on many tests
But definitely correct on any test which relies on statistics and not full surveys.
As for a referendum?
Why are you bringing that into the debate? I haven’t said anything about whether or not there should be another one.

escaped

... anyway, the actual dogs' issue isn't what should be focused on here, but ALL the Brexit amendments currently under review for 2026. Horizon, energy, and recognition of qualifications for regulated professions etc. It all needs to be negotiated, hopefully with a mutually improved outcome. I've said before, I think Starmer might be very good in this area at putting a case forward. 🤞

It's your good self that raised the dog issue. I agree it's puerile but asked for clarification because it costs nothing like the £1500 to take one dog to France five times a year that you've quoted. I do think comments should attempt to be factual or it appears exaggerated scaremongering.

Mollgo If you go back to the raw data for anything which relies on surveys, random sampling or scientific testing, you should find (if the results have been written up correctly) that a margin for error has been calculated and stated.

MOnica is absolutely correct. It would be impossible (and prohibitively expensive) to ask every single person in the country for their opinion every few months or so. It wouldn't be possible to know whether people are telling the truth either. Different polling companies have slightly different methods for choosing their samples, but they are generally within 5% of each other.

Committing the country to such fundamental changes after the referendum on such a small majority was ludicrous. There should have been some plan for the results beforehand - maybe if there's <10% majority in favour of leaving, there will be a thorough review of the major issues and then another referendum to see if the changes have solved the problems (or something like that).

However, (as you have written) that's going off on a tangent. The point is that all surveys should be seen in context. On another tangent ... there was a thread recently about eating green salad before meals - I looked up the original data and discovered that it was based on the eating patterns of just eleven people. Common sense should tell anybody that can't be scientifically reliable, but it's a matter of numbers. It would have been reliable if a few hundred or thousand people had been tracked - even then there would be a margin for error, which reduces the greater the sample size,

Mollygo

^You are not correct on many tests^
But definitely correct on any test which relies on statistics and not full surveys.
As for a referendum?
Why are you bringing that into the debate? I haven’t said anything about whether or not there should be another one.

Errrmm ... I thought you mentioned the referendum.

Nor is there any proof that if there was another referendum, those who CBB would bother to vote in that, or how they would vote if they did bother

I didn’t argue about whether or not there should be one, or how often. That was someone else.

OldFrill

escaped

... anyway, the actual dogs' issue isn't what should be focused on here, but ALL the Brexit amendments currently under review for 2026. Horizon, energy, and recognition of qualifications for regulated professions etc. It all needs to be negotiated, hopefully with a mutually improved outcome. I've said before, I think Starmer might be very good in this area at putting a case forward. 🤞

It's your good self that raised the dog issue. I agree it's puerile but asked for clarification because it costs nothing like the £1500 to take one dog to France five times a year that you've quoted. I do think comments should attempt to be factual or it appears exaggerated scaremongering.

Well, it depends who you use. The going rate at my vet, ( Devon), is £300 per dog, per visit.
The AHC is valid for one entry to the EU from the UK but once in the EU, you can travel around freely (and return to the UK) for up to four months, until the AHC runs out.
I return to the UK every time, after say four weeks' stay, so I have to start the process and pay all over again. I am NOT scaremongering, if the photo facility would allow it here, I would show a copy of my bills.

Item Vet / Nurse * Name of dog *
1 x Animal Health Certificate (HPC 10% Sales Discount) Balance after discount as a loyal member of the Healthy Pet Club and regular traveller. Payment Change Current Balance:1. Debit Card £253.80.
Without showing the invoice, and the names, I've copied the amount paid, which is factual for you.

I didn’t argue about whether or not there should be one (referendum), or how often.

That was not what I asked. I asked for what period of time should the results of a referendum be binding.

Unless you are agreed on that, it could be argued that the 1975 referendum that took us into the EU was still binding and the Brexit referendum 41 years later was invalid.

All this feeds into any decision abut moving beyond Brexit.

Unless you are agreed on that, it could be argued that the 1975 referendum that took us into the EU was still binding and the Brexit referendum 41 years later was invalid.

Precisely, MOnica😆

I pointed that out recently on some thread in response to a claim that moves to closer integration with the EU was ignoring the 'democratic vote' (i.e that of 2016) Which is essentially a nonsense claim...

MaizieD

^Unless you are agreed on that, it could be argued that the 1975 referendum that took us into the EU was still binding and the Brexit referendum 41 years later was invalid.^

Precisely, MOnica😆

I pointed that out recently on some thread in response to a claim that moves to closer integration with the EU was ignoring the 'democratic vote' (i.e that of 2016) Which is essentially a nonsense claim...

But how many times have you banged your head against that arguement? People have been conditioned to believe theirs was the final word and that democracy can go hang in this instance.

escaped

OldFrill

escaped

... anyway, the actual dogs' issue isn't what should be focused on here, but ALL the Brexit amendments currently under review for 2026. Horizon, energy, and recognition of qualifications for regulated professions etc. It all needs to be negotiated, hopefully with a mutually improved outcome. I've said before, I think Starmer might be very good in this area at putting a case forward. 🤞

It's your good self that raised the dog issue. I agree it's puerile but asked for clarification because it costs nothing like the £1500 to take one dog to France five times a year that you've quoted. I do think comments should attempt to be factual or it appears exaggerated scaremongering.

Well, it depends who you use. The going rate at my vet, ( Devon), is £300 per dog, per visit.
The AHC is valid for one entry to the EU from the UK but once in the EU, you can travel around freely (and return to the UK) for up to four months, until the AHC runs out.
I return to the UK every time, after say four weeks' stay, so I have to start the process and pay all over again. I am NOT scaremongering, if the photo facility would allow it here, I would show a copy of my bills.

For others who may not be aware - there are online vets specialising in AHC, there are plenty in England (fewer in Scotland but they will travel if you can't). Some will meet you to check the dog at a prearranged spot.
Approximately £100 for one dog (£50 each for up 5 other dogs on same AHC).
Subsequent AHC's are discounted provided details remain the same.
I paid £90 first trip £69 following trips, my vet wanted £400+ each time and told me to use an online service.
Your vet is duty bound to share your dog's information with the AHC issuing vet - at no charge.
Now have a pet passport, but if l can't continue using it I'll pay the £69 no problem. I don't think it should be on the government's agenda as it affects so few (generally quite affluent) people.

I think that despite the polls on people's changing view re Brexit that remain would again lose if they held a referendum tomorrow, and then what.

Galaxy

I think that despite the polls on people's changing view re Brexit that remain would again lose if they held a referendum tomorrow, and then what.

So do I.

Has anything that was promised by Brexit actually been delivered? Loadsa money for the NHS? A boost for fishing and agriculture? Lower immigration? Lower prices on just about everything? Seems like the opposite has happened in every case.

Galaxy

I think that despite the polls on people's changing view re Brexit that remain would again lose if they held a referendum tomorrow, and then what.

No. It was mostly old people who voted Leave.

This was from pollster Peter Kellner.

600,000 voters die every year, most of them old. Given the age profile of how people voted, 450,000 would have voted Leave and 150,000 Remain.

Younger voters tended to vote Remain. As more younger people became eligible to vote in 2017, 2018, 2019, replacing the old voters who had died, they were likely to vote similarly to their slightly older brothers and sisters.

By the time we left the EU in 2020 there would have been a Remain majority.

David Aaronovitch: ‘The Brexit generation is dying out’

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TSgi9WsoaQ

Silverbrooks

Galaxy

I think that despite the polls on people's changing view re Brexit that remain would again lose if they held a referendum tomorrow, and then what.

No. It was mostly old people who voted Leave.

This was from pollster Peter Kellner.

600,000 voters die every year, most of them old. Given the age profile of how people voted, 450,000 would have voted Leave and 150,000 Remain.

Younger voters tended to vote Remain. As more younger people became eligible to vote in 2017, 2018, 2019, replacing the old voters who had died, they were likely to vote similarly to their slightly older brothers and sisters.

By the time we left the EU in 2020 there would have been a Remain majority.

David Aaronovitch: ‘The Brexit generation is dying out’

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TSgi9WsoaQ

Yes.

But in my opinion there should never ever be another referendum about anything - ever.

Too divisive.

The country has never been the same since 2016.

You'd have to hope that, if there was another referendum, the news media would question both sides more thoroughly.

Live in hope - die in despair!

Oh I agree another referendum would be a disaster. I think commentators,etc are often out of touch with the general public, it is why they are often surprised by votes such as the brexit vote, Trump vote, etc. But I hope we never find out as another referendum would be the last thing we need.

No way another referendum - the situation has totally and utterly changed - it would be chaos.

The first one was bizarre enough - we spent 4 years deciding "what kind of leave" - losing trade - and are now sensibly trying to negotiate trade and security relations with things as they are now. A "soft Brexit" would have kept some of the trade things we are now negotiating

I would like to see (and it should never have been the case) the ideology kept out of what is in effect an economic decision.

Governments continually make economic decisions for the country, and this is merely another which imo, means closer working in order advantage our. GDP - and of course our businesses and E onomic strength as part of a bigger unit. We don’t expect to vote on economic decisions - only at the general election. Of course a government can decide not to work closer (they’d be wrong of course😊).

Arguing that the result would be different if a referendum was held now doesn’t make sense.
No evidence that the previous terms of EU membership would be reinstated, although I suspect that is what would be implied in all the advertising that preceded the vote.

That implication would be as wrong or ill-informed as some of the things we heard before the last referendum.

No verifiable evidence that more people would turn out to vote than the last time and without a referendum, only statistics but no verifiable evidence that more young people would vote remain or leave.
I do agree that there shouldn’t be another referendum though.
Definitely divisive and since there is plenty of evidence that the losing side will never accept the outcome as valid, even with a difference of over 1 million votes, we just provided the other countries, opportunities to make the most of the dissension.

we just provided the other countries, opportunities to make the most of the dissension exactly, Mollygo.
So how is Starmer going to make the TCA review expansive after his calling it too thin? How is he going to secure benefits that the UK failed to negotiate first time round? How is he going to incentivise the EU to reconsider and give in on the bodged agreements? I hope he has a big magic wand to get the EU to consent, though, as I have said before, he does seem somewhat better at putting forward good arguments, unlike those who went before.
My concern is that the EU has moved on from 2015, we are still stuck back there. Just because some people have ambitions to seek major changes to the TCA, it doesn't mean that things will fall smoothly back into place, but I guess it could be a start.