Hasven't neurological scientists pretty much proved that free will does not exist?
In essence, your brain (on a chemical level) decides your response before "you" are even really aware of it. Thus "choice", and any/all decision-making, is simply a reaction to that chemical process after the fact. So yeah, there isn't really any free will...not how it's traditionally defined, anyway.
Another possibility is that "free will" is merely limited, and indeed anyone whose emotions overwhelmed their decision-making process at times (everybody) proves that if "free will" exists at all it is not absolute.
It could be that "free will" can only apply to long-term decision-making. The studies were seeing if a person's choice could be predicted before a decision they made shortly afterwards. Or maybe it can only apply to more general things such as your attitude but we can't determine the specifics of action.
It could also imply that our existence as a single conscious entity is an illusion, that we are really an aggregate of other decision-makers/experiencers (which we know of as our subconscious mind), and those decision-makers are those parts of our brain releasing those chemicals that eventually come together to make a single, unified choice and unified experience. Thus, for us to make a choice as a whole entity rather than a random coming together of smaller entities requires deliberation between the parts and can only change things over the long-term.
Of course then these smaller entities' behavior can probably be predicted if we were able to look at the chemistry on an even smaller level, and perhaps so and so forth ad infinitum, which could mean free will paradoxically exists and doesn't exist all at once.
So then we would have free will in the same way that a government or an organization has free will, a will that depends on decisions being made but at the same time is not independent because it is the product of the decisions and communications between its members.