It's quite interesting, it seems that online and telephone polling are producing vastly different results for these particular polls.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/daily-catch-up-the-eu-referendum-isnt-really-on-a-knife-edge-a6776431.html
That's an interesting article which sheds light on the impact of methodology and sampling on polling results.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is the elephant in the room. What does a 'no' vote mean?
Indeed. In my mind, this question has yet to be answered satisfactorily by those who say we should leave.
Does it mean negotiating a relationship with the EU like Norway or Switzerland has - having to obey most of the rules while having little say in their making, but remaining part of the single market and retaining freedom of movement while not contributing much to budgets, etc? (This used to be the position of the anti-Europeans)
I hope not as whatever influence our country has left will be completely eroded, and we'll still be paying significant sums in.
Or does it mean opting out of Europe altogether, and becoming something more like Turkey or Ukraine?
Again I hope not, and again like Turkey and Ukraine we'd still be in a position where we are having to adhere to EU rules, but have no seat around the table.
Why has the 'no' camp not put together a clear plan? (Obvious because they could never agree on one)
Because there is no plan? The no camp seem to be very passionate about things like sovereignty, protection of border, etc. etc. While I respect this passion it is far removed from the reality of this country's position in 2016, and I've yet to hear a rational and coherent argument that would convince me the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of remaining in. In all the heat of the passion put across from both sides of the debate, there's very little substance and fact.
Last edited: