Credit: Shutterstock photoOur tracking poll, asking whether the UK should restrict immigration now and whether there should be a hard or soft Brexit, continues to show an overwhelming sentiment for both questions. However, the comments we receive in our polls are what make them unique and add insight to what the numbers show. It was the comments we received in our highly successful Brexit tracking poll that consistently supported sentiment for a Leave result while other polls showed the opposite outcome.
In this week’s results, the term “Clean Brexit” was raised by some of our respondents as a substitute for “Hard Brexit.” We have added this as a question to our poll, which now exceeds 1250 responses and you can voice your opinion by clicking below.
Click to participate in our poll
Clean Brexit (comments)
The term "Hard Brexit" is misleading since it implies the UK will be worse off. The term "Clean Brexit" is more appropriate, meaning all legislative links with the EU would be severed with the UK able to make trading arrangements with the EU on the same basis as with America or Australia and the rest of the world.
I do wish the "HARD" Brexit term could be substituted with "CLEAN" Brexit. Hard could suggest Brexiteers are inflexible, which is not the case. My understanding of the Brexit voters is that the best way to rest Sovereign control back from the EU is to make a clean break…Well done PM May for confronting the Anti-Democratic "Remainers" who want to overturn the Referendum result.
Poll results:
Do you think the UK should restrict immigration in the meantime even if it violates EU rules?
Yes 90% vs. 93% (prior week)
No 10% vs. 7% (prior week)
Are you in favour of a "soft" or "hard" Brexit approach?
Yes 93% vs. 91% (prior week)
No 7% vs. 10% (prior week)
Let your voice be heard:
Click to participate in our poll
Jay Meisler, founder
Global Traders Association
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
