This week’s YouGov poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 42%(nc), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 9%(nc). Fieldwork was Monday and Tuesday and changes are from last week. The two point lead is a little lower than YouGov have been showing of late, but nothing outside normal sample variation.

On the other regular YouGov trackers, 44% of people think that Britain was wrong to vote for Brexit, 43% think it was right. Just 22% of people think that the government are doing well at negotiating Bret, 62% think they are doing badly (including a majority of both Leavers and Remainers). While the poll was taken after the government’s announcement of extra funding for the NHS, it has unsurprisingly has little impact on which party people trust more on the issue – 34% of people think Labour would handle the NHS better, 24% think the Conservatives would. Full tabs are here.

While it’s not a particularly new poll (the fieldwork was conducted the weekend before last) there was also a newly published BMG poll yesterday. Topline figures there were CON 38%(-1), LAB 41%(+2), LDEM 11%(+1). Changes are since early May. This is the only poll since mid-April to have shown Labour ahead. Full tabs are here.

UPDATE: A third poll out tonight. Survation have topline figures of CON 41%(nc), LAB 38%(-2), LDEM 7%(-2). Fieldwork was Tuesday to Thursday and changes are from the start of the month. The poll has some more questions on Brexit – full details are here.


1,218 Responses to “Latest YouGov and BMG voting intentions”

1 2 3 4 5 25
  1. @Trigguy:

    Could someone have done better in negotiations? That depends on whether the EU’s approach is inevitable, and if the UK has no more choice than the Germans did in Versailles. Could the UK have won goodwill by moving unilaterally on citizens – or is every bit of outrage from the EU just bluster for publicity purposes?

    If you look at the EU’s original negotiating position, it has got considerably harsher over the last year. The transition was an excellent example. The EU’s original position on the Irish border was not an explicit statement that all compromises must come from the UK.

    Was it possible for the government to push the Labour off the fence? To build fences from the very start? To present Brexit more than is just the mechanistic recitation of redlines, so easily parodied? Could a better tone of negotiations have been reached by making an offer on citizens, and getting Parliament to endorse it?

    The EU in the transitional “negotiations” pushed things so far that some EU states pushed back thinking “no state can agree that”. Clegg was told by one of Macron’s officials that France would never have agreed what Macron demanded from the UK. But May was unable to build a coalition for pushing back on that.

    Personally, I find it terrible that the Starmers and the Grieves respond to the EU’s more OTT demands by laughing at the government rather than offering support to oppose. That is May’s best excuse.

    But it is her choice to plod along talking the talk of Brexit, but when it comes to the business end she might as well give Barnier a blank sheet and challenge him to do his worst.

    Could anyone have done better? That is speculation. But it is she who has failed. (And it is the big policy decisions that mark the surrenders, the to-and-fro in the Barnier-Davies negotiations is a sideshow. When Barnier sees no need to concede anything because the UK will back down, it really wouldn’t matter if Davies was Metternich reborn.)

  2. I must say that I am glad that Ben Wallace has tried to point out the consequences of the nuclear option to Airbus.

    This is not to downplay the seriousness of the situation, and the need for reciprocity in the coming negotiations.

  3. PS: Writing in the Telegraph, Juliet Samuel (voted remain) puts it much better than I did above:

    “We have been throwing away all our best cards (autonomy over triggering Article 50, the cash, access to our market), alternating supine with belligerent rhetoric, issuing hollow threats, fighting among ourselves and failing to prepare seriously for any outcome but surrender. The EU doesn’t even have to play against us, because our government is so inept it has generated its own opponents, from Airbus’s panicking executives to the arrogant Remainers of the Lords.”

    If you are bluffing, she concludes, it is cheaper to give up sooner.

    I do not see how May is not responsible for such a state of affairs.

  4. Joseph 1832

    “But it is she who has failed.”

    Has she? What was she trying to do? If her aim was to create a unified Tory Party, then she has. If her aim was to satisfy ToH’s hopes, dreams and aspirations, that too.

    The “conspiracy theory” is, of course, that she recognised the folly of the incoherent Brexit stance, and sacrificed herself to save England from itself.

    That a politician is willing to be humiliated and derided for pursuing a noble end is quite rare – but if anyone has seen the photo of her performing a curtsey to some royal or other, she doesn’t seem to mind looking supine and foolish.

    Theresa – thy name is Boudica! :-)

  5. Colin,
    “I thought as much-so will ignore your assertion.”

    This isnt a new issue. Do you not recall fuss about the ‘Liverpool pathway’, and people being shuffled along it, a few years ago? Patients drinking from vases because they were refused water?

    Colin,
    “The coming weeks in German politics could be seismic.”

    So you perhaps think that just as the Uk is leaving th EU because it cannot tolerate freedom of movement, the whole EU might be about to limit freedom of movement?

    Barbazenzero,
    “Given that Grieve ended up not voting for his own amendment, I can’t help wondering whether the whole pantomime wasn’t agreed with May”

    Isnt that rather my theory, that the entire supposed conflict is one huge theatrical production?

  6. @Danny

    “Isnt that rather my theory, that the entire supposed conflict is one huge theatrical production?”

    No Danny, it is dead serious and for real mate.

  7. Joseph1832,
    “If you look at the EU’s original negotiating position, it has got considerably harsher over the last year.”

    Not really. it has become more detailed, but if you recall May signed off on the essential deal last year. Except now she has un-signed off on it.

    Curiously the EU seems to think she ought to honour what she has already agreed.

    “Could anyone have done better? That is speculation”

    No, it is a fundamentally important point. The EU negotiating position was always clear. No UK exceptionalism. You are in, or you are out. I understood that before the referendum. May understood it, and so did all the MPs. It isnt rocket science.

    But the leave campaign was based upon Uk exceptionalism. It was never possible to deliver what they promised, and so no government can deliver.

    The reason for the election was to obtain a mandate for hard Brexit and whatever might ensue from that. It was the only sort of Brexit which makes any kind of sense, separating the UK from the EU. Not that I think it would help the Uk, I think it would do the opposite, but it is in its way a principled stand with certain objectives, which refuses to be swayed by cost.

    The tories understood that all soft Brexits will fail to satisfy determined leavers. Will fail to satisfy remainers, and will probably slightly longer term fail to satisfy soft leavers, who will come to see nothing has been gained and a lot has been lost. So I agree with people above who argue soft Brexit is untenable.

    But hard Brexit is even more certainly untenable, and remain is not terribly inviting either for a party which has pledged the opposite, buoyed on a sea of leave votes.

    There is no viable outcome for the tory party, and thus they have spent two years deliberately not reaching an outcome. The plan seems to be to fudge the outcome for as long as humanly possible.

    Because whenever there is an outcome, then comes the reastion to it. The current trickle of reaction becomes a flood.

  8. jonesinbangor,
    “No Danny, it is dead serious and for real mate.”

    I didnt say it wasnt. Nonetheless it is a huge theatrical production. Propaganda is always deadly serious.

  9. DANNY

    You have that the wrong way around.

    The propaganda of Brexit is theatrical.

    The politics of Brexit is real and absolutely serious.

    We enter the end game now.

  10. From the very beginning of the process the EU have dictated the terms of any agreement. It is their club so they are not going to allow anyone not in their club , no matter how useful or powerful dictate the terms. It was always likely to be thus and there is absolutely nothing that the UK could do about this.

    From the EU point of view, the integrity of the union is much more important than any trading relationship with anyone. This will of course damage areas of their own economies just as much, if not more, than the UK’s but, as always, politics beats economics.

    If course there could be a change of heart by the EU but I see no sign of it and I don’t see any way that the UK could alter that situation whoever was doing the negotiating. I am amazed that so many people expected it to be otherwise.

  11. I don’t think anyone could have achieved any kind of satisfactory withdrawal from the EU in the timescale, but May made things far more difficult by creating meaningless and unnecessary red lines; also both she and Davis appeared at the beginning also to be almost incredibly ignorant about how the EU worked – I’ve always wondered whether her irrational opposition to the ECJ was because she confused it with the ECHR, (which had annoyed her greatly as Home Secretary over the extradition of Muslim clerics). Pretty hard to believe, I know, but they did seem to be that incompetent to begin with. The position of EU citizens resident in the UK could hardly have been worse handled…

    Obviously though It’s all the fault of the Remainers. And the EU.

  12. DANNY

    The Liverpool Pathway was for end of life-for dying patients.

    The Gosport dead were in there recovering from illness or procedure-before they were killed that is.

    The “vases of water” were at Mid Staffs -the previous appalling exposure of cover up & shooting of whistleblowers by the medical & political establishment .

    Hence my comment-“here we go again”.

    The medics who did these things were not financially incentivised to harm patients-they were uncaring, or incompetent, or not suited to their job-or all three of those things.

    Parts of the EU are trying to maintain the crazy marriage of the Dublin Regulation with the Schengen Agreement , parts of the EU refuse to accept Dublin any longer, parts of the EU want to shelve Schengen…………..so Merkel has called another conference to get this resolved so that her coalition government doesn’t collapse & she doesn’t lose the 70 year old partnership with CSU.

  13. Joseph,

    Labour certainly believe that they would be able so secure some compromises with the EU. This is based on the early call for unilateral rights, meetings with Barnier although nothing ever published and a better relationship with the ROI Government.

    Labour never expected any Government defeats last week but the final vote was useful in narrowing down and identifying their own uber-rebels to 4 or 5 (not seen final figures and whether Hopkins also voted with HMG).

    The WA will pass and the back-stop will be retained as the back stop and, ultimately, the EU will allow the substantive negotiations to begin in earnest in the back-ground after the WA has commenced is passage through appropriate legislatures. What the back stop does along with its’ implications for the whole of the UK is make a no trade deal at the end of the transition unpalatable to the hard Brexit MP’s as that would be worse for them than a soft Brexit; ergo we will have soft Brexit but how soft?

    Final thought, I wonder if Mrs may will shuffle off next Easterish and let some other poor sod have to oversea the new relationship negotiations with somebody other than Davis as well perhaps.? Also a new DUP deal needs to be agreed next spring for the Tories to securely stay in Government

  14. @ MILLIE 3.45 pm

    I agree the 250 jobs estimate for Coul golf is far too many.

    For Trump`s Menie course, the number of employees is normally said to be 90, when this is discussed in NE Scotland, as it often is.

    Martin Ford was being generous with 100 employees in this Sunday Post article

    https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/exactly-10-years-ago-trump-promised-us-a1-billion-investment-the-worlds-best-golf-course-a-five-star-hotel-950-flats-and-6000-jobs-ten-years-on-weve-been-donecourageous-crit/

    “”Cllr Ford has always maintained he made the right decision and, in the week of the 10th anniversary of his removal as a committee chairman, said: “There are around 100 employees working there now, nowhere near the 6000 promised.

    “The resort outlined was two golf courses, a clubhouse, 36 golf villas, 950 timeshare flats, practice areas and a new-build 450 bedroom five-star hotel. And Trump made it clear he had to have everything or he’d walk.

    “Ten years later, he’s built one golf course. A much smaller clubhouse than anticipated, and converted an existing building into a 16-bed hotel.

    “No timeshare flats, no five-star hotel, a minute fraction of what was promised. The economic benefits are minuscule.

    We’ve lost our irreplaceable nature conservation site and for what? We’ve been done, basically.””

    I would add a correction to the article for anyone reading it. The Aberdeenshire committee voted 9-5 to reject the application, the 9 including SCON, SLibDem and SNP councillors. Then the committee had to decide between asking Trump to submit a revised application, or giving a total refusal.

    They then voted 7-7, whereupon Martin Ford used his chairman`s vote to totally refuse. He explained to supporters that he did this to secure a full public inquiry at national level, arguing that this would allow both sides to explain their case in detail, and with cross-examination and press reporting.

    So I hope that likewise the Scottish Government will call the Coul application in. Maybe there is space around Embo and Skelbo that could allow some compromise, but this would involve the proposers acquiring more land.

    I fear that our UK system of declaring sites of natural beauty or wildlife quality just attracts rich investors to purchase these grounds with the intention of making profit from golf or other leisure, on the back of the prestige that the listing gives.

  15. Does anyone really care about a golf course in Scotland? There must be thousands of development projects around the country (for SNP people, that means the UK). Are we supposed to discuss them all in detail?

  16. @NEARLYFRENCH

    “From the very beginning of the process the EU have dictated the terms of any agreement. It is their club so they are not going to allow anyone not in their club , no matter how useful or powerful dictate the terms. It was always likely to be thus and there is absolutely nothing that the UK could do about this.

    From the EU point of view, the integrity of the union is much more important than any trading relationship with anyone. This will of course damage areas of their own economies just as much, if not more, than the UK’s but, as always, politics beats economics.”

    This has always been the key point, no matter how much people try to argue the virtues of one side or another on a specific issue.

    Add in that you have a UK government tasked with implementing the result that most of them didn’t want, and yeah. here we are.

    And I think most people instinctively get that, which is why the polling numbers have been so stable with regards to who thinks we should go again or who thinks it should be overridden. It’s only the obsessives (on both sides) who think the reality is always about to change on the basis of the latest utterance from some key player.

  17. JIM JAM

    @”Labour certainly believe that they would be able so secure some compromises with the EU. ”

    Including compromise on EU Competition & State Aid Rules , to facilitate McDonnell’s Industrial Policy ?

  18. DAVWEL

    @”I fear that our UK system of declaring sites of natural beauty or wildlife quality”

    “A Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in Great Britain or an Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) in the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland is a conservation designation denoting a protected area in the United Kingdom and Isle of Man. SSSI/ASSIs are the basic building block of site-based nature conservation legislation and most other legal nature/geological conservation designations in the United Kingdom are based upon them, including national nature reserves, Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas, and Special Areas of Conservation.
    Following devolution, legal arrangements for SSSIs (Scotland, England, Wales) and ASSIs (Northern Ireland) differ between the countries of the UK. The Isle of Man ASSI system is a separate entity.The decision to notify an SSSI is made by the relevant nature conservation body (the appropriate conservation body) for that part of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage or Natural Resources Wales.”

    Wiki

  19. Pete B: “Does anyone really care about a golf course in Scotland? There must be thousands of development projects around the country (for SNP people, that means the UK). Are we supposed to discuss them all in detail?”

    Normally when something like this is discussed, it is because it suits a particular agenda. People don’t care about the golf course, they care about the political leverage they can get from it. See also the Haringey Development vehicle, which was a serious issue for people living in Haringey but wasn’t really a national story except as part of Labour’s internal culture war.

  20. DANNY

    I agree with you regarding the pantomime being played out by HMG, but I think that it isn’t yet clear whether the outcome will be EEA+ or A50 revocation.

  21. Colin,

    I think Nuancing of Free Movement is more important to those in Labour who ight join the hard core 4 in rebelling otherwise.

    As we know current state aid rules and invoking ‘national interest’ have not been used when they could have been, Redcar Steel Works for example, so little abrogation might be required in practice.

    Labour may not get any concessions but Starmer would start with more goodwill it appears and the role of the ECJ with a little bit of UK presence of a joint body of some sort would be sorted quickly with Labour as ‘Labour Leave’ voters don’t appear to care about that much.

  22. Just to add Colin that the expectation is of Tory rule through to 2022 as they will cling to power somehow, so many of the questions about what would Labour do become somewhat unimportant.
    They have 2 goals:

    First to string out as long as possible

    Second to identify specifics on which there may be enough Tory back-benchers aligned with them to get Government policy to ease in a softer Brexit Direction.
    As we have seen over the last 2 weeks this will rarely be actual victories on votes but more HMG compromising to avoid defeats.

  23. Interesting to see the latest political moves regarding Brexit. Ministers are still having to argue the fictional line that a no deal is possible and they are prepared for this ( it isn’t, and they aren’t) with these claims only made to contain their own party opinion. The more they push this claim, the closer Airbus, BMW etc will look to get out. Soothing the egos of JRM and Boris is more important that securing the future of UK industry.

    Meanwhile, the extra parliamentary campaign is switching to mobilising public support. With polls showing both much greater support for having a public vote on the final deal, and a growing margin to remain, this is where the pressure was always going to come from.

    I always felt that a party and PM would be extremely nervous taking the country out of the EU if it became clear that this was against the wishes of the electorate at the time.

    We don’t yet know if this will be the case, but up to now, the government has been able to hide behind assurances that they will get a good deal and no one will notice the difference, except for those areas where we want to see a difference, like immigration. Cake and eating it.

    Whether the deal crystalizes sufficient problems to impinge on the public understanding is going to be the key issue, and there remains a chance that the leaving deal will remain sufficiently opaque that we enter the transition without a great public clamour, thereby losing the impetus for a second vote.

    However, that isn’t a given, and if the terms of the deal are seen as too much of a backward step then the idea of a loss of support for Brexit and a nervous PM asking the public for their decision is back on.

    In such circumstances of an obvious shift in opinion, it gets very difficult for politicians to argue that they are pushing forward the will of the people, while denying the people a new vote. That simply smacks of fear, and would be extremely divisive, as well as fundamentally undemocratic.

    Now, more than ever, I suspect the future hangs on the opinion polls.

  24. Pete B: @ 12.07 am

    Surely you recognise that the doings of Donald Trump are relevant to us. Our past UK experience ought to have affected our political attitudes to him. Just because we had the full works in Scotland 10 years ago (the unfortunate neighbours of his newly-bought land having their views blocked by high banks and conifers; their water cut off (90-year-lady)), doesn`t negate their importance.

    And Trump`s success in persuading many councillors/ministers/politicians with his enticing-vision approach is an inspiration to other very rich people to try the same tactics, and to believe that money talks more than morals or science.

    What happens at Coul is relevant to conservation across the whole UK, at a time when Brexit means that the elaborate system of safeguarding (SACs, SSSI, NNRs, Habitats Directive) could be undone in the UK.

    Coul poses the question should conservation matter more than potential jobs or personal profit, subjective judgements I realise.

  25. JIM JAM

    The Times featured an interesting article two days ago about Olly Robbins grappling with EU Competition & State Aid rules-which Cons have agreed to align with I think.

    When I read it it confirmed my belief that when JC made that throwaway remark about getting “concessions” so he could pursue Labour Industrial Policy ( which is sacrosanct) ; he was papering over a massive credibility gap.

    So far as HoC tactics & outcomes go, I’m afraid I have lost interest-its just game playing.

    I have everything crossed at present for a deal which might vaguely resemble something I would recognise as freedom from this dreadful Political Union .

    I think too little attention is paid in UK to what is happening in Germany, Italy, & the Visigrad countries. The recent “accord” between Macron & Merkel is just typical of the vacuous stuff which appears after the latest round of deals based on personal political interest -masquerading as Unity of Purpose.

  26. COLIN

    The problem is that we are likely to end up with something worse than what we had. We were, in many ways, a semi detached EU member, outside Schengen and the Euro and with a veto in a lot of areas. We could, in time, have changed much of what we didn’t like because, while we were inside, we were a big player holding a good hand of cards. The one thing we couldn’t seemingly do anything about was immigration but that only affected other European countries. The trade deal stuff is a complete red herring. There are no discernable advantages in being out on our own.

    We can all see now that immigration control is a double edged sword and also how completely confused the public are on this issue. I have even had people tell me that they thought France was a Muslim country where all the extremists came from. The British, in general, seem to know very little about our closest neighbours.

    If course, now that we are leaving, the EU negotiators are getting mean and spiteful but that is the nature of any relationship breakdown and could have been forseen. The trouble is there is no way back from here.

  27. @Alec

    Interesting theory, but there’s the fatal flaw that as long as the Tories stay in power until March (9 months and counting down), there will never be another referendum.

    If TM makes even a hint of movement there, the crocodiles in the ERG will rip her to shreds and gobble her up.

  28. Good morning all from a lovely and sunny Winchester,

    With Airbus and a host of other companies threatening to bolt from the UK over Brexit I just hope Rick Stein decides not to bolt with his very fine seafood restaurant in Winchester before next week. I’ve booked an evening table midweek for my other half and myself and I’m really looking forward to a nice bit of fish possibly accompanied by some of THE OTHER HOWARD’S fine produce.

  29. An “interesting” solution to the movement of people. The German version of the article is more detailed, but the English one is OK.

    http://www.dw.com/en/potential-eu-albania-asylum-deal-could-help-keep-germanys-angela-merkel-in-power/a-44340062

  30. @ Jim Jam

    I’m not really sure what a Tory strategy to string it out as long as possible is likely to achieve for them or the country.

    Economically stringing it out with uncertainty is arguably causing the economy more problems (underinvestment etc) than certainty- whatever the final deal is.

    Negotiation wise it is a disaster as we aren’t really negotiating on anything specific to get the best deal on that already decided realistic scenario. There is also this end point of March so, in stringing it out, quick choices may need to be made without thinking things through.

    Politically they are endangering their hard Brexit support- the 5% to 10% that have switched UKIP to Tory and voted almost exclusively on Brexit. At some point those supporters will clock that the line of voting Tory to see Brexit through doesn’t stack up.

    Sometimes there is a point to kicking a can down the road while you sort out the problem (like 2008) but sometimes there isn’t.

  31. @danny: Obvious examples of the EU tightening its position:

    – Transition. Original position was that it would have to reflect agreement for future relationship. End position, total stand still, do as you’re told, and you’ll be lucky if we ask your opinion.

    – Ireland: did they say originally that it was only for the U.K. to move?

    They just added detail? No. They start with broad propositions that could be moved in different directions. They found out we’d accept anything. So they took the hint.

    It is just them applying the logic of us leaving? So tbey’ll close the Common Fisheries Policy to us? No. You only truly apply a principle when you apply it against your interest. Is the EU being principled when it says any FTA must come with the EU supervising our economic, social and environmental piluct? No, it is an act of power.

    By all means cheer your team, but don’t pretend they are the Corinthian Casuals of international negotiations.

    Obviously Mr Christie could say that this is all irrelevant. Being thrashed is being thrashed. There is a lot of force in that. Yet it is somehow very important to the EU and its British fan club to present Mr Barnier as a model of reasonableness.

    When we surrender, it will be to be a superior power determined to teach us a lesson.

  32. @JimJam: An interesting scenario. But I do wonder why the EU would ever agree to end the transition period.

    The backstop is the sort of thing we used to extort from weak countries in our worst colonial moments. But the EU will never release the U.K. from it. It is a statement of power, and not a recipe for future friendship.

    The scenario you give is perfectly possible, but only if the EU confounds its U.K. supporters by refusing to accept our surrender. Otherwise, awhat’s the point’ Brexit must fail. Brexit supporters would only accept if aiming to overturn it, which the EU would be wise to.

    So, either you negotiate to carry out the logic of Brexit, or you repudiate that logic and surrender.

  33. Jim Jam,

    I don’t share your view that the NI backstop will be agreed by PM May.

    The DUP will never agree to the EU text and large sections of the Tory party are against.

    The UK has tabled a counter proposal that does not even address all the issues. The May strategy to complete the proposal is to enlarge the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK but the EU will not agree to this even if her cabinet will.

    Thus we are at an impasse with no resolution. The negotiations have failed and there’s no prospect of this changing with the current government.

  34. Hal – lets see, it was agreed last Autumn in writing between Eu27 and UK HMG so difficult to see how PM May can not accept the back-stop unless something was agreed in its’ place which wont happen by October.

    Colin – greater state aid freedom would be something Labour can concede as part of a negotiation I believe.

    Shevvi – it is Labour wanting as to string things out as much as possible as they believe time is in their favour; in terms of UK demographs, the growth of moderate Bregret and EU Governments facing issues of their own.
    They might be wrong but I agree with them.

  35. “If TM makes even a hint of movement there, the crocodiles in the ERG will rip her to shreds and gobble her up.”

    Will they? They’ve seemed rather toothless so far, perhaps even more so than the remain rebels. Numerous threats have turned out to be entirely hollow, it seems both sets of rebels fear Corbyn more.

  36. Jim Jam,

    May agreed to the principle of a backstop in December but the EU legal text came later and is most definitely not agreed.
    Of course if there is some alternative text all parties can agree to, then the Withdrawal Agreement is back on track.

    I don’t think there is any such compromise text. What would it contain?

  37. @ Jim Jam

    Yes- well I would agree with that assessment given all the Tory negatives for stringing it out I gave! Not sure Labour have much say in this though or at least not as a unified force.

  38. @Pete B

    I know very little about the Coul golf course application.

    My point was that it has become routine for applicants to claim huge job creation numbers with very little, often no, justification. They simply think of a number and quadruple it.

    Incredibly, local councillors often fall for this blatant nonsense, and officers almost never challenge the numbers.

    Not much to do with polling, I grant you, but something to discuss other than Brexit…

  39. Hal
    ”I don’t think there is any such compromise text. What would it contain?”

    Good question and one I can’t answer but whilst I am not a Tory and voted remain I think the ability of the Government and the EU’s desire to fudge has been underestimated many times.

    I am very confident, W.A will pass with Labour (less 4) and most opposition MPs voting against and we will move to the next phase.

    I think in reality most decisions are clear in the main protagonists minds and the key piece at some point in the next few years will be having enough new nuances to Free Movement enable the UK to be in a SM with the EU whilst limiting the number of leave voters who will feel betrayed.

    The longer this takes the fewer leave voters will need to be on-side.

    In short ERG, Johnson etc have lost and DD knows it.

  40. Jonesinbangor,
    “We enter the end game now.”

    There is a route through this where the end game may yet be delayed decades. Indefinite transition. It is quite possible, I’d say, because it achieves the main goal of the tory party- make no definite decisions about brexit.

    Colin,
    “The Liverpool Pathway was for end of life-for dying patients.”

    Its basically the same as what happened to these people in the recent hospital case.Just written up tidily. Stuff people full of pain killers and they die.

    It may be the liverpool pathway was intended for patients already dying, but if you place any healthy person on it they will be dead pretty quick. The scandal about it was precisely because people who were not terminally ill were placed upon it.

    Though to my mind and having watched it in action, its an inhuman way to kill someone who is basically alive albeit with an illness which will kill them sooner rather than later, and still requires they die of starvation and dehydration over a period of a week or two. Imagine applying that to animals in an abbatoir.

  41. Barbazenzero,
    “I agree with you regarding the pantomime being played out by HMG, but I think that it isn’t yet clear whether the outcome will be EEA+ or A50 revocation.”

    See above, ‘no decision’ is still not ruled out. It is fairly easy to see how we might end in Indefinite transition, but indefinite postponement of the leaving date is still also possible. I think if we did end in indefitite transition afterformally leaving, then a reasonably painless way of rejoining would be found. (scrap UK rebate might do it).

  42. @JONESINBANGOR
    ‘If TM makes even a hint of movement there, the crocodiles in the ERG will rip her to shreds and gobble her up.’

    The trouble is if they do that it will make the current squabbles in the Conservative Party look like a tea party to what would follow.

  43. Shevii,
    “I’m not really sure what a Tory strategy to string it out as long as possible is likely to achieve for them or the country.”

    I’m a great believer in looking at what people do, assuming they acted from self interest reasons, and therefore work out what those were. It is to be assumed the tories have stalled because they believe it is their best course.

    If they see a successful Brexit, then their clear course was to go for it immediately. So obviously they cannot see any good Brexit, and not getting on with it avoids having to admit this or see it happen with blame falling to them.

    They had an election to try to get voters to support a hard Brexit, and this was rejected. That was the first possible escape, had voters agreed.

    On the other hand, they cannot simply call it off, because that would offend most of their voters. So they cannot take that course.

    Not much left except to stall. Compromise….is not going to satisfy anyone at all, and is simply more stalling. They might hope to get BINO and pass it off as Brexit.

    Joseph1832,
    ” Transition. Original position was that it would have to reflect agreement for future relationship. End position, total stand still, do as you’re told, and you’ll be lucky if we ask your opinion.”

    As there is no agreed end position, it is something of a misnomer to call transition transition. It is simply BINO until something is decided. This is really the choice of the British government, not the EU. You couldn’t make it up, that officially 2 years in, the government has no publicly agreed position on the outcome in wants.

    “ireland”,

    The EU is bound by a treaty to uphold an open Irish border. The UK government might not care about this, but the EU does. England might vote to be rid of N. Ireland, but the South, which will still be a member of the EU with voting and possible veto rights on any agreement (depending on the form it takes), wants to remain unified with the North.

    The EU respects the wishes of its members, it was always obvious that it would do so from the very start. How could anyone ever believe otherwise? As soon as the Uk applied to leave, it no longer influenced EU policy.

    ” it is somehow very important to the EU and its British fan club to present Mr Barnier as a model of reasonableness.”

    If the Uk had shown as much reasonableness and in particular clarity as to its position as the EU has shown, the whole matter would be settled by now. There is no settlement because the Uk has refused to say what it wants.

    “The backstop is the sort of thing we used to extort from weak countries in our worst colonial moments. But the EU will never release the U.K. from it. It is a statement of power, and not a recipe for future friendship.”

    You dont seem to accept the implications of your own statements.

    The EU can only compel the Uk to do anything, to the extent the UK believes it is in its own self interest to comply. What you are saying is that Uk politicians believe the UK’s self interest is best served by being part of the EU trading system and following its rules.

    It is not like the British empire where in the final analysis we would send troops. This is purely a matter of Britain choosing where its best interest lies in the face of various options, none of which are seen as optimal for the UK.

  44. “Does anyone really care about a golf course in Scotland?” asks Pete B

    Since a number of people had posted comments about the Coul planning decision and the ecological implications, obviously he knew that the answer to his question was “Yes”.

    Hence it was a rhetorical question, designed to make a point rather than elicit an answer.

    Since no one has suggested that every planning application should be discussed in detail, the only explanation (that could be considered reasonable, in any sense) for his second rhetorical question is that he considers that no development project should ever be discussed, regardless of the wider political implications.

    Alternatively, Pete B just thinks that no one should post on any topic that fails to interest him. Since that would entail his being “excessively preoccupied with one’s own life and circumstances; thinking only about oneself” (and there’s a term for that), that seems unlikely, however.

  45. DANNY

    @”Its basically the same as what happened to these people in the recent hospital case.”

    No it isn’t

    The Gosport patients were not dying UNTIL they were given excessive doses of morphine.

    Read the Report. ffs.

    It says at least 456 “lives were shortened”.-ie they were killed.

    It says there was a “disregard for human life”

    It says there was an “institutionalised regime” of prescribing and administering “dangerous” amounts of a medication NOT clinically justified .

    The Liverpool Care Pathway For The Dying Patient ( LCP) may well be “inhuman”-presumably why it was phased out in 2013.

    But that is an entirely different matter to Gosport.

  46. @DANNY
    “The EU is bound by a treaty to uphold an open Irish border”
    I don’t believe this is true.

    The only European treaty that might potentially read on Irish border issues is Schengen, to which neither Ireland nor the U.K. is a party.

    And the EU isn’t a party to either of the potentially relevant bilateral agreements between Ireland and the U.K., the intergovernmental part of the GFA and the CTA agreement.

    This is a political not a Treaty position.

  47. JustCHRIS RILEY
    ‘the Govts hands are tied as it is at the mercy of nihilist factions who block every attempt to find sensible solutions.

    It ought to have told Rees-Mogg and Grieve alike to shut up or face explusion, but the crucial point of this story is this has never at any point been about the national interest, it has been about a civil war in the Conservative Party and the attempts to keep the party together.’.
    ————————————–
    AGREED

    JOSEPH 1832

    the UK has no more choice than the Germans did in Versailles,

    I have read some twaddle on this site, but that takes the biscuit!

    @COLIN @ DANNY

    1. @”Its basically the same as what happened to these people in the recent hospital case.”
    No it isn’t
    The Gosport patients were not dying UNTIL they were given excessive doses of morphine.
    ———————————

    AGREED

    Thus ends my scroll through this thread. Now off to our allotment to pick fruit and give thanks to our public sector for allowing me and my family to cultivate our plot for a peppercorn rent. And I believe some lucky so-and-so’s’ have two!

  48. Millie,

    “Incredibly, local councillors often fall for this blatant nonsense, and officers almost never challenge the numbers.”

    In my experience Planners always check the numbers and have a great number of similar developments in their area and elsewhere to check against.

    Local Councillors do often fall for it and some just use it as an excuse to support developments they like.

    My favour developer trick was “The Small Plot Shuffle!”

    A modest piece of ground has planning for up to THREE houses. A developer buy an option ( not the site, they don’t pay till after they get planning!).

    They put in the cheaper “Outline application to build EIGHT houses and go to Committee.

    The Committee reject it as “Far Too Many” for such a small site; but you can resubmit a revised application free of planning charge within six months.

    Four months later the Developer submits their “Revised Application” free of charge for free, this time for FIVE houses.

    Councillors then agree, often over the planners to allow this “More Modest Compromise” of FIVE House.

    The Developer then excesses their option on the basis of the agreed price for the THREE House plot and immediate sells it at a higher price to a Builder as it has permission for FIVE houses.

    The Builder then pays the higher planning fee for “Detailed Planning Permission” and builds the houses while the Developer makes a nice profit without even cutting a sod of Earth.

    And they say Alchemy is a myth!

    Peter.

  49. DANNY

    Agreed that the Cons might well just kick the transition down the road until the next GE when they could try harder to lose than in 2017 and hope to pass on their mess to Lab.

1 2 3 4 5 25