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 6 25
  1. PETERW @ DANNY

    Technically you may be correct that the Belfast Agreement does not guarantee maintaining a soft border, but so what?

    The RoI has the same veto over any final agreement as the other 26 member states.

  2. I’m beginning to wonder if this site has become little more than a self help group for those remainers who compete with each other in predicting the gloomiest out come for the U.K. after brexit.
    From Alec Danny Oldnat and many others a daily dose of what ifs ,worst case senario’s wrapped up as facts when none of know how brexit is actually going to pan out.
    Still I suppose the saying misery finds company is true about many things in life sadly it seems to have found a home on this site that’s for sure.

  3. Turk,

    Politics abhors vacuum.

    If you don’t like those who have genuine concerns about what might happen discussing it here why don’t you give some clear indication of what exactly the Deal the Government wants is an how they are going to achieve it.

    We’ve had two years of slogans and speeches but little clarity.

    This came up in the discussions of the Sewel Convention; No one from the Government or Leave side ever came up with a clear answer to why the existing system can’t be used.

    there was a fair but of; :Ah but this is different” and “We need to do this!” but nothing approaching a clear explanation of why these particular powers and why for this time.

    If you don’t like people asking the same questions over and over and providing their own answers give us clear credible ones of your own as opposed to;

    “Brexit means Brexit” “No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal”, “Deep and Special Partnership”, “Red, White & Blue Brexit!”.

    Government by cliche isn’t cutting it!

    Peter.

  4. APPOINTMENT IN SAMAR[R]A

    So bored by Brexit, started reading about football. It appears German & Brazil may play a round of death in Samara. This reminds me of the fable I loved as a child.

    “There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions: the servant came back, trembling, and said ‘Master, when I was in the market-place I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death. She made a threatening gesture; now, lend me your horse, and I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me.’ The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant fled. Then the merchant went to the market-place and he saw Death in the crowd and he said, ‘Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant this morning?’ ‘That was not a threatening gesture,’ Death said, ‘It was a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.’”

    It was the Title of John O’Hara’s 1st v good novel which was considered rather fast in its day.

  5. @BZ
    “Technically you may be correct that the Belfast Agreement does not guarantee maintaining a soft border, but so what?”

    Automod not sure why but I’ll try again without the op ed.

    That’s not the point I was making. DANNY suggested the EU had a treaty obligation on this. But the EU isn’t party to any of the relevant agreements. In particular it isn’t party to either agreement to which the GFA appellation is customarily applied.

  6. Seems to have done the trick. Must have offended by the comment to your so what. The so what is that correctness matters.

  7. Incidentally I don’t neveassrily agree that the GFA doesn’t imply obligations on the border.

    The three points I tend to make though are:
    that it does so in far less express terms than some people think;
    that it places those obligations on each government not the EU;
    that even a return to barbed wire and watchtowers would be a far less blatant breach of the express terms of the agreements than the current refusal by one of the parties to the multiparty agreement to implement strand one at all which scarcely attracts a word of criticism.

  8. Turk
    Well said. I campaigned in the referendum, but I’m heartily sick of debates about Brexit now. Let’s just let the government get on with it and then complain if we want to.

  9. Colin,
    “The Gosport patients were not dying UNTIL they were given excessive doses of morphine.”

    I havnt read all the cases, but I see the BBC quotes an example on its website of a 91 year old woman with lung complications following a hip operation. We are all dying, and a poorly 91 year old is a lot closer to it than most.

    As I said, her death would have saved the NHS money as compared to her continuing to 100 with further treatment expected to be needed during that time. It is a straightforward way to reduce demand on the NHS. It is precisely the sort of decision we expect doctors to make.

    Now you might think this is an inhuman argument, but it is a perfectly sensible decision on how to expend medical resources for the greater good of everyone. It is precisely what must happen when doctors are required to choose who gets treatment.

    “It says at least 456 “lives were shortened”.”
    what does that mean, 20 year olds shortened by 80 years, or 90 year olds shortened by three weeks? I heard a relative being interviewed, who seemed to be saying they expected their loved one to die, just not so suddenly.

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

    Its replacement is really not much different. The principle is the same, kill people with painkillers and no food. The dubious moral justification for killing people in this way is that they are actually being treated for pain, which might have the side effect of killing them. If such a predictable side effect is acceptable in this circumstance, then why not just do it properly?

    it is a completely speciousargument and simply designed to get around the law against euthanasia. And because of that law, doctors are forbidden from simply giving them a mutually agreed easy and quick death, but are required to drag it out. And again because of that law, cannot discuss the matter with their patients, and indeed might take matters into their own hands to speed things along, as we seem to have a case in point in the hospital.

    It is obvious that people die sooner when NHS resources are restricted. There must somewhere be an actuarial calculation of the number of excess deaths caused by the current government’s austerity. That isnt surprising or unusual.

  10. PC

    I can’t give you a credible answer to what is happening regarding brexit .
    1. I’m not part of the government brexit negotiation team neither I suspect are you.
    2. I have no way of knowing how brexit is going to play out neither I suspect do you.
    3. I can only guess that the government will arrive at a solution what that is I don’t know neither I suspect do you.
    Now as we are both clueless on the outcome endlessly discussing on how dreadful it all is seems to you and the usual suspects on here is if nothing else a exercise in taking tedium to a whole new level nothing new I suspect to a SNP supporter.

  11. There was an interesting debate on the radio day, or maybe just the usual about whether leavers or remainers were really upholding democracy.

    But what I did think was publicly raising this is aimed at stirring up the public from its apathy. It strikes me as an attempt to rouse people, whether to suport or oppose Brexit, and thus get the public to actually make a decision, which the politicians can them implement. To get people to fight it out and produce a consensus one way or the other.

  12. @Danny

    I’m not sure that is the right tactic.

    Fundamentally the problem is that Leavers cannot agree what sort of Brexit they want and nobody wants to compromise (partly because different Leave factions have incompatible and irreconcilable demands).

    Remainers don’t have a voice in this and influential Leavers are (very) angrily opposed to them having one, so a Remainer march will have little impact other than to demonstrate a high level of support amongst people nobody is listening to.

  13. PETERW @ BZ

    DANNY suggested the EU had a treaty obligation on this. But the EU isn’t party to any of the relevant agreements. In particular it isn’t party to either agreement to which the GFA appellation is customarily applied.

    That’s not the opinion of the EP’s briefing on The Impact and Consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland [PDF 12pp].

    The main issue is over the Special European Union Programmes Body (SEUPB), which manages cross-border EU structural funds. The SEUPB implements the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland, which has amounted to four peace programmes financially underwriting the peace process, providing 1.5 billion euros of funding. These are supposed to be resolved by 2020, so probably are not major barriers, but they certainly exist.

    There are also a few issues such as NI appeal court rulings unsurprisingly prevented from being appealed to the ECHR by the UKSC thanks to our make-it-up-on-the-fly constitution and legal system.

  14. @ Danny

    “Now you might think this is an inhuman argument”

    Well yes!

    I re-read your post several times as it surprised me. You being one of the more reasoned posters, whether I agree with you or not. But this post seemed off the scale crackpottery. I tried to read your post as a general philosophical point about euthanasia (which I have sympathy with) and a whatabout funding issue but that didn’t really work.

    I can only assume you have never been through this experience with any of your own relatives based on your comments on the hip operation case.

    The Guardian has a longer list here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/20/gosport-hospital-deaths-families-condemn-scandalous-failings

    It is not for anyone to shorten someone’s life just because the state can’t afford it under any philosophy or money shortage. It is quite likely that even were it to be acceptable that most would end up in private nursing and paying for their care. It would in no way improve the chances of anyone else with medical conditions that needed treatment.

    The NHS has worked out a system for end of life (some of these cases may indeed not even have been end of life) that has been thought through very carefully. The base philosophy being that there is no longer any point in treating conditions as this may cause more pain and discomfort for no useful purpose so they will instead prioritise keeping someone comfortable and pain free.

    At Gosport it appears a doctor has been playing God with these regulations which is an absolute disgrace to override existing medial practice because you think you know better. Extreme painkillers were clearly not needed and there seems to have been plenty of evidence that the patients and relatives themselves did not want this end.

    If you had ever experienced an end of life situation i don’t think you would have posted what you did. It may go on for a few days or months but you would know that firstly it is a very stressful period for everyone involved including the “it will be a blessing” feelings mixed in with not wanting to say goodbye for the relatives and likely to be the same for the patient. More importantly the NHS generally seems to get it about right. Doctors will tend to ensure it is totally pain free and will have very little hesitation in prescribing the right dosage. This doctor appears to have gone way beyond that remit.

    So yes- totally inhuman to take a resources argument with zero attention to what might or might not be the wishes of a living being and their relatives.

  15. Turk,
    “discussing on how dreadful it all is seems to you and the usual suspects on here is if nothing else a exercise in taking tedium to a whole new level”

    if you think it so boring why do you take part?

    More likely I suspect, you believe it to be the most important issue of our time, which affects every other political decision. And that is why you are here making a case for your own side in the debate.

    I have told you why I think Brexit will be a failure if it happens, and that is not least because HMG shows every indication of believing this also. Because there would have been nothing simpler than quickly concluding negotiations and having everything settled by now – if they only believed the outcome would be good. Why delay something which will then bring you praise?

  16. Germany 2 Sweden 1. Kroos scores winner from free kick with 15 seconds to go in stoppage time. Does the World Cup get more exciting than this?

  17. CHRIS RILEY @ DANNY

    Given that the Cons are so wedded to plurality voting, the obvious solution would be to have a new EU referendum which listed every possible form of leaving the leavers can think of plus a single remain/rejoin option.

  18. I don’t usually comment on non-polling/election matters but I was in London for the march today. The best speaker at the rally in Parliament Square was Tony Robinson. Speaking as a Labour supporter he really hammered Jeremy Corbyn for his tacit support of the government. You could hear the anger in his voice.

  19. Hireton

    I thought Phil and Kirstie already had £20 bn. Wanting to double that seems a bit greedy.

  20. DANNY

    You talk a load of meaningless nonsense.
    I leave you with your crackpot fantasies & conspiracies & await accountability & prosecutions following the Gosport Report.

  21. Baz
    Well done for turning out, I would have done if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids, and other half, and all the other excuses.

    I’ve been pointing out on here for weeks that the atmosphere around the idea of a second referendum seems to have shifted, and given the choice between a second referendum and a general election the Tories, having no electoral leeway left, and no raison d’être other than winning elections, would definitely opt for the referendum.

    This would give them another three years to regroup, to elect a new leader who would have time to come up with a post-brexit strategy and policies to fill the vacuum after either leaving or accepting the country’s change of mind. The ERG will raise merry hell, and Labour will probably abstain, but Starmer should be able to convince enough Labour MPs to rebel to get it through without them while being able to point to the party’s official position and profess dismay at Blairites.

    Large demonstrations happen regularly, very few get reported on, only those with some momentum and chance of success get to be the lead item on the BBC, especially when the world cup’s on and Engerland haven’t lost yet. Those that do either drive or reflect government policy which is on the edge of change, such as the poll tax, or turn out to be on the right side of history, like Iraq. It’s obviously too early to know yet, but my hunch is that the government are by no means as hostile to the idea as they claim. And speakers attacking Corbyn will understand that it will be far easier for the government to agree to a referendum if the opposition are against it, Corbyn and Starmer can then adjust their opinions accordingly during or after the campaign, which they will, if they’ve learned anything from Indyref, sit out and let the Tories tear themselves apart again over.

  22. @Turk – sorry if you don’t like discussions of the various difficulties and problems facing the UK with Brexit. I’m also sorry that you misrepresent so many posts and posters. While your views on such matters don’t give me a moments pause for thought, as ever, it mighr be helpful to see what we can agree on.

    We don’t know how Brexit will pan out, nor even if it will happen. We do know that it isn’t going to be anything like the leave campaigns promised us. We don’t know what form of Brexit our own government wants. We can see that Theresa May is making a pigs ear of the process.

    Is there anything there you disagree with?

  23. Some sombre posting here tonight. I suggest some music might help lighten the tone …

    The late Adge Cutler wrote and performed this ditty, which seems prescient of the brexit shambles, and this one which suggests the apposite response re Galileo.

  24. Some sombre posting here tonight. I suggest some music might help lighten the tone …

    The late Adge Cutler wrote and performed this ditty, which seems prescient of the brexit shambles, and this one which suggests the apposite response re Galileo.

  25. Cutler also campaigned for local beauty spots, as demonstrated in this ditty, whilst being realistic over the need to compromise with our neighbours with this one.

  26. There won’t be a second referendum.

    But for the collective mental and social health of the nation, that lot in London today have no regard.

    We had the vote. The result was clear.

    Let’s pull together for a successful Brexit and stop pretending the clock can be wound back.

  27. TED,

    Labour’s view is not to call for a second referendum (on what by the way) as they have no way of delivering one given parliamentary arithmetic and to encourage youngsters, in particular, that by campaigning in this way they can force one is dishonest.

    Should the PM do as you postulate and use the idea of a second referendum to avoid a GE, Labours response would depend on the question and the alternatives available, pushing for a GE first for example. Highly unlikely of course anyhow but fun to speculate I suppose.

  28. JONESINBANGOR

    There won’t be a second referendum.

    I suspect you’re right, if only because the Con leavers know they would lose given the polls are now showing remain ahead in the polls, admittedly small at the moment but with us oldies shuffling off whilst younger voters replace them the longer they prevaricate the less likely are they to win.

    Let’s pull together for a successful Brexit and stop pretending the clock can be wound back.

    Why? DANNY’s analysis seems pretty good to me. If they had a way to leave preserving the economy it would already be in motion, as would be the huge lorry parks for Dover and other ports along with the customs facilities to clear them. Until those facilities are in place, a hard brexit is not feasible.

  29. @Barbazenzero

    Yes, the demographic might change. But any future referendum would be on rejoining as we leave in 9 months.

    Rejoin on what terms? Even the “young” might baulk at those realities!

    The reason there are no lorry parks is that (a) the Government is confident of a deal and (b) they’ll probably fall back on contingencies like “operation stack” if both sides want to the utterly stupid.

  30. Danny

    Yes, it is an inhumane argument, and thoroughly flawed.

    You conflated assisted death with the case – it wasn’t assisted death. End of story.

    Some of the patients were very old – it is not an argument, it is an irrelevant distraction.

    The NHS was under pressure – but it does not offer choices for the medical staff. It may result in death working around the KPIs, but at the level of the individual it is irrelevant. We are not making cars here. And if we do, it will select the peiple, but quite clearly it didn’t happen. So, it invalidates most of your argument, as not the rule, but the exception has to be explained.

    There is absolutely no parallel with the LCP in relationship with the the overdose of patients.

    While I recognise the political points (and I also recognise that Colin made an attempted it – which is a different matter, he would do it on any subject that makes him look like a humane person), they are largely irrelevant – even the suppression of evidence. They do come back.

    So, there are distinct questions with distinct answers. – By conflating them your answer is at least insensitive, but perhaps I humane.

    On the LCP (and it is political) -https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/news-analysis-what-is-the-liverpool-care-pathway/

  31. JiB
    It may be that May and DDavis can lead us into the promised land as you suggest, in which case you are probably correct.

    If it comes to a choice between a general election or a second referendum, I believe that the Tories will choose the latter, for the reasons I explained above.

    You are perfectly entitled to consider my views delusional, it is my opinion that describing the referendum result as decisive and asking people who are just as convinced that Brexit is the wrong course of action should change their minds because you tell us we should doesn’t leave me inclined to take yours any more seriously than you take mine.

    Jimjam
    Agree totally, they would do best to just carry on keeping out of it as best they can.

  32. I see Gavin Williamson has further improved his status as a PM in waiting….

  33. @ BFR – Indeed, any of the changes you mention will be picked up in opinion polls. Are you going to show any analysis to support your view that Bregret has risen? How about the timings and triggers for it to make a difference to the outcome even if Bregret was to rise.

    @ SJ – So your going to take a n=1 view from COLIN rather than polling info? 17.4million people voted Leave! There does seem to be something with Remainers avoiding using polling info to support any of their claims. The limited info that folks like B4B use has been exposed as duplicity on optimising ‘wording’ to get the highest support – hardly a good place to start a campaign to avoid the lies of the previous campaign!

  34. FWIW,

    My view is that there probably has been a small drift to remain due to demographic changes and a tad of Bregret but no where near enough to warrant a second referendum that would be even more divisive than the last one

  35. EURef2 – extremely unlikely in the time available.

    Neither main party wants one, as witnessed by both their leaders repeated comments, the ongoing trauma within both parties and the various HoC votes we’ve had on a new ref. The latest being on 20Dec17 (basically the request for a PeoplesVote)

    “approve the.. package (deal) or remain a member of EU”

    Only 23 MPs supported that! LAB (and SNP) abstained en masse. It was rejected by a majority of 297 (320 v 23)

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2017-12-20&number=86

    However, very few things are totally impossible. B4B and PeoplesVote know step1 is to convince Corbyn. I encourage all committed Arch-Remainers to redouble their efforts to secure step1 – good luck ;)

    P.S. OFOC’s next ad campaign should show Corbyn mopping May’s floor, May looking on somewhat tired but with clear appreciation for the work of Corbyn and his front bench. The caption could read.
    “Found in Theresa’s May’s kitchen – Jeremy Corbyn, the handmaiden of Brexit” ;)

  36. Trevor,

    In the bizarre world of post Brexit politics the best way to achieve a second ref if that is desired is for Labour not to call for one as this would make HMG even more opposed.

    The only way their can be second ref this side of a GE is if it becomes Government policy.

    Sometimes, of course, oppositions have to set out their stall to make clear where they stand on an issue even when there is no chance of a change in Government policy to lay the grounds for GEs.

    A second ref on a question that those that want one can’t agree on would be a waste of opposition capital.

  37. TW: So your going to take a n=1 view from COLIN rather than polling info? 17.4million people voted Leave!

    As I’ve said, the discussion was about bellwethers, ie leading indicators. Polling is essentially a lagging indicator: VI is reactive to events and the influence of opinion leaders and formers. That is why people like Arron Banks put so much effort and cash into their activities.

    The word ‘bellwether’ is used as an anology because where he leads, the flock follows. So if you want to know where the flock is going to go, it’s better to study the bellwhether’s direction – especially if the snapshot of the flock’s position that you’re placing your faith in is more than two years old!

    Incidentally, since I cited Colin as seemingly getting a bit wavery over brexit commitment, he has revealed that what underpins his view is a seemingly visceral hostility to the EU, so I suspect he is really in the “out at any cost” camp with TOH.

  38. JonesinBangor

    I will never agree that the Referendum result was the right thing for this country and will always argue to the contrary as long as there is breath in my body.

    It is not just about the economics here. The EU countries are our neighbours. I regard myself as European. To isolate ourselves from our nearest neighbours is absurd in my opinion. It ignores 20th Century history.
    I also dislike the faux patriotism that goes hand in hand with Brexit.

    In time Brexit will be reversed. It make take twenty/thirty/forty years but it will happen under a Govt unburdened by the ideological baggage of the current incompetent incumbents.

  39. jonesinbangor: There won’t be a second referendum.

    But for the collective mental and social health of the nation, that lot in London today have no regard.

    Quite the contrary. The reason for a people’s vote on the deal is for the collective health of the nation. At present, brexit is a rift in UK society with as much long term potential for divisiveness as anything in Northern Ireland.

    If brexit goes ahead on the basis of a referendum taken with no concrete view of what sort of brexit was on offer, then the chorus of ‘Hannan said we would remain in the Single Market, johnson said this, gove said that and none of this was true, even the no-truths on the side of the bus were untruthful’ will continues for decades.

    A people’s referendum – on the deal or indeed no deal which May brings back – will render the ground infertile for any argument about the outcome of brexit not being what people voted for.

    We had the vote. The result was clear.

    If it was that clear, you should have no qualms about the outcome of another referendum. It is welcome that you say the result was clear, because that sets the threshold for a second referendum.

    Let’s pull together for a successful Brexit and stop pretending the clock can be wound back.

    LOL. Brexit is nothing if it is not a pretence that the clock can be wound back.

    As for pulling together for a successful brexit, my efforts are directed to preventing it. I am not putting any effort into pulling together for a final model of brexit which has no democratic mandate [regardless of the mandate for the vague idea of brexit]. I am not sacrificing my integrity to support an ideal brought about by non-truth tellers with Russian funding, because from that perspective, pulling together for brexit is neither patriotic nor democratic.

    All you get from me, is that if a second referendum is held, which purges out the non-truths and the Russian money, and brexit is upheld, then I shall accept it with good grace. I shall cease being tough on brexit and turn my attention to the causes of brexit.

  40. “Let’s pull together for a successful Brexit and stop pretending the clock can be wound back.”

    First rule of politics – when someone calls for everyone to pull together, it means that their side is in deep trouble.

    ‘Pulling together” = “sharing the blame”.

    Nice to see Nigel ‘I’ve just secured my right to live in France’ Lawson calling for a crippling no deal exit.

    Let’s pull together!

    Let’s all go and live in France together!

  41. @Trevor Warne – latest polling evidence suggests a healthy lead for remain and a huge lead for a second vote. if we want to talk polling.

    Indeed, according to that Survation poll, if the referendum result was a ‘decisive’ vote to leave, current opinion is to remain by a stonking great landslide.

  42. Barbazenzero: “Technically you may be correct that the Belfast Agreement does not guarantee maintaining a soft border, but so what?
    The RoI has the same veto over any final agreement as the other 26 member states.”

    Yes, it is about power not principle.

    But no one likes to admit that it is acting according to principle and not just “this is what we want from you, and you have no choice because we’re more powerful”.

    Hence the facile comparisons with the constitutional position of the Isle of Man or Hong Kong. Everyone wants to believe that they are acting within the ordinary boundaries of political decency, instead of the economic equivalent of gunboat diplomacy.

    Also hence Remainers never disagreeing with the EU’s demands on anything. No one also wants to side with gunboat diplomacy against their own country. Far better if to say that the other side is in the right.

  43. Interesting to see the political maneuverings around the deal/no deal issue.

    Somewhat late in the day, hard line Tories are today calling for the no deal option to be invoked, despite the mounting warnings from just about everywhere about how bad an outcome this would be.

    It’s also odd to hear this now, after the written and verbal agreements on the transition, which completely negate the no deal option and which May has repeatedly accepted.

    Perhaps it shows nervousness on the part of leavers, but it would also be helpful to remainers. Keeping alive the threat of such a damaging option, and with it the risk of major adverse business decisions that could make a huge dent in the public popularity of Brexit is one possible route for remainers to triumph.

    The more damaging Brexit appears to be, the more chance of securing a second vote. In my view, the best way to prevent Brexit is to put the hardliners in charge, go for a no deal, and watch what happens. Indeed, it’s the incremental and slow pace of the impacts of Brexit that are largely responsible for helping keep the entire show on the road.

  44. MIKE PEARCE

    @”To isolate ourselves from our nearest neighbours is absurd in my opinion. ”

    I agree-but this seems to be the only alternative to membership which is on offer from Barnier.

  45. If anything favours Remain if there was a rerun, which to be honest is incredibly unlikely, is differential turnout.

    Put simply first time Leave was more motivated and quite frankly most Remain supporters never thought Leave had a chance.

    If there was a rerun I think turnout would be closer to the Indy Ref 85% than the EU 72%.

    Add to that the fact that the public are more aware of the potential difficulties and Leaves solutions to them have hardly set public enthusiasm alight and it’s obvious why Leave supporters are against it!

    Peter.

  46. @Jim Jam

    A second ref on a question that those that want one can’t agree on would be a waste of opposition capital.

    A second referendum would not be a re run of the first. It would be on the negotiated deal TM presents to Parliament.

    There is a very easy question that people could agree on in my view. Once negotiated, the final deal could be put to the people:

    “Do you

    a) support the final deal the government has negotiated or

    b) want to leave the EU on WTO terms or

    c) withdraw article 50 and retain membership under current terms?”

    Make it AV, so the winning view will command the support of 50% + of the population.

    What’s complex about that?

    Isn’t that open and democratic?

  47. @Colin – “I agree-but this seems to be the only alternative to membership which is on offer from Barnier.”

    Umm….no. I could be mistaken, but I’m sure it was May that rejected all the other options due to her insistence on her red lines.

  48. Interesting stuff from Hunt today.

    Now we must not only refrain from expressing our desires for a better Brexit outcome, but instead pull together and get behind The Blessed Theresa, but businesses aren’t even allowed to state their worries about what could go wrong.

    ‘The will of the people’ = ‘keep your mouths shut and do what we tell you’.

  49. @Joseph132

    Also hence Remainers never disagreeing with the EU’s demands on anything. No one also wants to side with gunboat diplomacy against their own country. Far better if to say that the other side is in the right.

    I don’t see much point in agreeing or disagreeing with the EU’s ‘demands’ on ethical grounds. They have a negotiating position and given the number of states involved and the possibility that any of them, not to mention the European Parliament could veto the final deal, they have little choice but to be pretty inflexible about it. It’s not a matter of gunboat diplomacy but just of them sticking to their rules. Saying the EU is morally right on an issue is as unconstructive as saying that they are morally wrong. The question is really ‘what wriggle room do they have?’.

    If we assume that they have lots of wriggle room (probably false) and really want a deal (probably true) we may threaten them with no deal and end up getting it. In my view that would be morally culpable on our side,

1 2 3 4 5 6 25