Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
So assuming the sample in the You Gov survey is indeed representative, then in theory of we had a second referendum today, the result would have been 16.4m for Leave, and 17.1m for Remain.
Looks like your maths is a bit off there, markjay :confused:

Assuming the same turnout and no rounding errors on the 7% and 4%, it actually gives a tiny win for Leave by a margin of just over 123,000 on a total vote of just over 33.5 million. So, unchanged in a simple majority sense, but in reality too close to call, and certainly not the large swing that some of the more vocal proponents of a second "public vote" would like to believe.

Which all tends to suggest that the opinions held are deep rooted and largely unaffected by the machinations of politicians both in the UK and the EU, and that absent some cataclysmic event, a second referendum would have an outcome just as divisive as the first as it would either reinforce the first, or overturn it by a tiny margin.
 
Looks like your maths is a bit off there, markjay :confused:

Assuming the same turnout and no rounding errors on the 7% and 4%, it actually gives a tiny win for Leave by a margin of just over 123,000 on a total vote of just over 33.5 million. So, unchanged in a simple majority sense, but in reality too close to call, and certainly not the large swing that some of the more vocal proponents of a second "public vote" would like to believe.

Which all tends to suggest that the opinions held are deep rooted and largely unaffected by the machinations of politicians both in the UK and the EU, and that absent some cataclysmic event, a second referendum would have an outcome just as divisive as the first as it would either reinforce the first, or overturn it by a tiny margin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7% of 33,551,983 valid votes is 2,348,638.81 voters who would switch from Leave to Remain.

4% of 33,551,983 valid votes is 1,342,079.32 voters who would switch from Remain to Leave.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2,348,639 - 1,342,079 = 1,006,558 voters who would switch from Leave to Remain.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So instead of 17,410,742 Leave votes, we would now have just 16,404,183 Leave votes.

And instead of just 16,141,241 Remain votes, we would now have 17,147,800 Remain votes.

That's a 743,618 (2.2%) lead to Remain.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where did I get it wrong?
 
Again, as I pointed out, those who are even more entrenched in their original positions are irrelevant as far as a the results of a second referendum are concerned. Only those who actually changed their minds matter.

The previous referendum was won with a majority of 1.3m. If more than half of these 1.3m voters changed their minds, then the results will be reversed. So if the current survey shows that there's an overall balance of 1m voters who changed their minds from Leave to Remain, then this is a victory for Remain (if we had a second referendum) - because Remain only needed to take away 650,000 voters from Leave in order to reverse the original result.
 
Looks like your maths is a bit off there, markjay :confused:

Assuming the same turnout and no rounding errors on the 7% and 4%, it actually gives a tiny win for Leave by a margin of just over 123,000 on a total vote of just over 33.5 million. So, unchanged in a simple majority sense, but in reality too close to call, and certainly not the large swing that some of the more vocal proponents of a second "public vote" would like to believe.

Which all tends to suggest that the opinions held are deep rooted and largely unaffected by the machinations of politicians both in the UK and the EU, and that absent some cataclysmic event, a second referendum would have an outcome just as divisive as the first as it would either reinforce the first, or overturn it by a tiny margin.

But there is reason enough to believe that many who would have voted remain did not as they thought it unnecessary. Given a second opportunity to vote, they will inevitably turn out in greater number than would those who would have voted leave but failed to make it to the ballot box.
 
So where did I get it wrong?
It's 7% of those who voted Leave would switch, and 4% of those who voted Remain, not 7% & 4% of the total who voted...
 
My reconning,
and if you go along with those stats,
another ref,
that is before any further refs
the result theoretically,

Leave 16,837,640
Remain 16,714,343.

That's rounding up to full bodies.
 
But there is reason enough to believe that many who would have voted remain did not as they thought it unnecessary. Given a second opportunity to vote, they will inevitably turn out in greater number than would those who would have voted leave but failed to make it to the ballot box.
Quite possible - as are other outcomes.

My point is that another vote is more likely to reinforce divisions than to provide a clear majority either way.

If it results in a Leave vote with a reduced majority, how does that help? Will the Remain camp accept it? I suspect not. So we continue to have votes every few years until the populace give the "right" result?

If it results in a Remain vote with a slim majority comparable to that for Leave in 2016, will that help? A one-all draw is hardly a resounding confirmation of a volte-face by the electorate. So what then?
 
Quite possible - as are other outcomes.

My point is that another vote is more likely to reinforce divisions than to provide a clear majority either way.

So what then?

Simples really, democracy is cancelled.
But in favour of what I haven't worked out.
 
Quite possible - as are other outcomes.

My point is that another vote is more likely to reinforce divisions than to provide a clear majority either way.

If it results in a Leave vote with a reduced majority, how does that help? Will the Remain camp accept it? I suspect not. So we continue to have votes every few years until the populace give the "right" result?

I think remainers would accept that as a result - talk of a 'confirmatory' vote is otherwise meaningless.

If it results in a Remain vote with a slim majority comparable to that for Leave in 2016, will that help? A one-all draw is hardly a resounding confirmation of a volte-face by the electorate. So what then?

And in the same spirit, that too would have to be accepted.

Strikes me we are currently on the verge of leaving not because it is in the country's best interests to do so but because 'they said we could'.
Are we to leave for good reasons or because of some dogmatic principle of how often the public can be asked its opinion? Even a bad decision for the right reason is still a bad decision.
 
I think remainers would accept that as a result - talk of a 'confirmatory' vote is otherwise meaningless.

I don't think so. There is no evidence to support that.

And in the same spirit, that too would have to be accepted.

I don't think so. There is no evidence to support that.

Strikes me we are currently on the verge of leaving not because it is in the country's best interests to do so but because 'they said we could'.

Irrelevant. The referndum took place, the result is what it is.

Are we to leave for good reasons or because of some dogmatic principle of how often the public can be asked its opinion?

Absolutely not, just to preserve democracy.

I already think our democracy has been destroyed by those in charge of managing it.
There should have been a decisive result to leave instead of noises to threaten the eu and appease the electorate.

The damage done by the charade of Westminster can't be reversed, but it can, an I think will, be worsened.

Who here still believes in the UK democracy?
Who here has faith in our Parliament to act in our interests and not their own?
How many no longer give a toss?
 
But there is reason enough to believe that many who would have voted remain did not as they thought it unnecessary. Given a second opportunity to vote, they will inevitably turn out in greater number than would those who would have voted leave but failed to make it to the ballot box.

Bit of an assumption that. Where's the certainty that those who couldn't be ar$ed the first time around "will inevitably" turn out for a second referendum? Maybe we could make an assumption about those leavers who similarly couldn't be bothered. Will they inevitably stay at home despite their three years of frustration and disappointment?
 
It's 7% of those who voted Leave would switch, and 4% of those who voted Remain, not 7% & 4% of the total who voted...

I see....

So it's:
7% of 17,410,742 = 1,218,751.94
4% of 16,141,241 = 645,649.64
----------------------------------------
Delta: 573,102.3 voters switched from Leave to Remain

So still 61,648.2 less than the 634,750.5 changed-voter threshold required to reverse the result......
 
The majority is actually 123,297,
but wouldn't be relative to a real life event anyway so it's all a demic.
 
Last edited:
Bit of an assumption that. Where's the certainty that those who couldn't be ar$ed the first time around "will inevitably" turn out for a second referendum?

Because this time they realise the necessity (as opposed to believing remain would automatically prevail).

Maybe we could make an assumption about those leavers who similarly couldn't be bothered. Will they inevitably stay at home despite their three years of frustration and disappointment?

Less likely as leavers did turn out to alter the status quo. Leavers were ardent and voted. And because of that, against expectation, they won the referendum.
 
Last edited:
It's illegal to ask for a referendum twice in the same generation. Also that statistic is based on a fraction of the population

Sent from my H8116 using Tapatalk
 
I had a great history/politics teacher at school - he made me look at politics in a different light - and one of the things he taught me was that politics isn't linear; it's actually circular - the more extreme your political views are the more they arch round and meet their opposite "they're the same, they just wear a different suit" he used to say (even to this day I still find him quite an inspiration.)

A good example of this is Trump and Corbyn - the more they are attacked, the stronger they become; tactics like "fake news" so their followers are programmed to only believe positive news about their leaders is, purely from a tactical point of view, a brilliant strategy. You only have to look at todays news with Richard Burgon, completely denies saying something inflammatory which is shown to be a lie, then the Momentum machine immediate defence is whataboutery of the highest order!

I don't know where this all ends, but I doubt it will be pretty...
 
It's illegal to ask for a referendum twice in the same generation.
Did not know that.
How does that particular law define "generation", and also can you point to the law in question ?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom