YouGov have a new poll in the Times tonight conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, after the resignations of David Davis and Boris Johnson. It suggests public opinon is breaking against the Chequers Brexit deal, and that public confidence in the government’s handling of Brexit is falling ever further.

Only 13% of people now think the Chequers Brexit deal would be good for Britain (down 1 since the pre-resignation poll at the weekend), 42% think it would not (up 9). 23% think it respects the referendum deal (down 4), 39% think it does not (up 10). Just 13% of people now think that the governemnt are handling the Brexit negotiations well, down from 18% at the weekend.

On voting intention, Labour have reopened a small lead, the first from YouGov since March. Topline figures have the Tories on 37% (down 2), Labour unchanged on 39%. The changes themselves are within the normal margin of error, but coming on top of the YouGov and Survation polls conducted at the the weekend which both showed a drop in the Conservative lead, it doesn’t look positive for them (though that said, an ICM poll earlier today, conducted between Friday and Monday, did not suggest any movement). As ever, it is worth waiting for other post-resignation polls to see if it turns out to be a consistent pattern, or just noise.


451 Responses to “YouGov poll shows opinion turning against Chequers Brexit deal”

1 7 8 9 10
  1. PETE B
    “I expect most of you know that I am a UKIP member”

    I didn’t, but it explains a lot.

    “As I am probably a bit better informed about the party than most non-member UKIP voters”

    Not knowing that your leader is an islamophobe and a supporter of Tommy Robinson who has declared his intention to lead you to the far right when this has been reported by just about every reputable news outlet doesn’t give me any confidence that your idea of well informed tallies with any definition which I might recognise.

    “It’s quite simple really, if the Tories betray the 4%, UKIP will improve in the polls.”

    There, fixed that for you.

  2. Bill,
    “The first cost I would like you all to put a price on is the loss of our, the UK’s, democracy.”

    What democracy? The Uk is a monarchy and we are all subjects with no rights.

    We are only citizens with rights of the the EU, but there is a plan to leave that.

    The UK operates a system where a few thousand people who are members of the big two political parties choose who will be MPs. Only after these have made their choice for MP do voters get any say, and only in picking between them. In most constituencies only one person has any realistic chance to win, and so the choice of MP rests entirely with the few people choosing the candidate in the localy dominant political party. When i say dominant, I mean with the active suport of a tiny proportion of voters.

    The chosen voting system enforces this situation, because it excludes small parties from any chance of ever getting candidates elected. Ironically, the proportional elections to the european parliament enabled UKIP to get a toehold in politics and state funding to suport them.

    Consider what happened in the recent election. Many people wanted either a hard brexit or remain. Yet neither big party guaranteed these outcomes. UKIP who plainly were the committed party of brexit saw its vote share shrink, while the libs who were the most obvious remain party stood still. Instead remain piled in behind labour’s equivocal position, and leave piled in behind the tory’s promise of something brexity. We still dont know what, in either case.

    And then consider the final results as compared vote share. Tories got more MPs than they deserved from number of voters. labour about right. libs should have got about 50. UKIP about 10, greens 10. Scotland and Ireland are special cases because they are deliberately over represented because of their small size, but SNP and DUP got too many.

    Though of course, had voters an assurance that if they voted for a smaller party then it would have got more MPs, probaly many more would have done so. It isnt at all clear what the parties stance on brexit would have been under a democratic system or what would have been the outcome. Most likely we would have UKIP MPs supporting leave, but tories would have continued to be a remain party.

    UKIP might have been the largest single party, but probably opposed by a majority for remain. Or, if UKIP had only achieved the support of diehard brexiteers, parliament might have reflected a firm majority for remain over a wide spread of parties.

    The debate over how to implement different kinds of Brexit and their merits would have been fought out before decisive elections, not after, with the result that there would likely not be any majority at any point for any kind of Brexit.

  3. Neil Wilson,
    “Under the Napoleonic EU system we cannot eliminate the bad deal of the PFI contracts. ”

    Actually, we can. The Uk has been hugely influential and successful in changing the EU to a different design which we preferred to the one we joined. We created a twin track europe where we chose which parts to opt out of, and having both the precedent and the veto to maintain this, would continue to mould the EU in the future to what we want. None of this is possible if we leave, but we will always have to make our laws match those of our most important international partner, the EU.

  4. Fascinating week watching President Trump perform. There is much about the President that I don’t like but I do like his plain speaking. Very refreshing in a politician. He certainly shook up NATO and its members with a threat of US withdrawal if they other NATO countries did not up their defence spending to 2% of GDP immediately and 4% in the longer term. He then made his long-awaited visit to the UK and spelt out a clear analysis of May’s Brexit proposals and how there might not be a trade deal with the USA on the basis of the Chequers accord. He also pointed out what a bad Mayor of London Sadiq Khan was, echoing what Peter Oborne said last week. On all three points cases he was absolutely correct IMO.

    During his visit, various Rentamobs demonstrated against him, with all the usual suspect groups present. No doubt most of the demonstrators, also voted to Remain in the EU referendum, the idiots. I notice Corbyn joined one of the demonstrations, what a disgrace that man is. Of course, people have the right to protest peaceably, and I would defend that right, but personally I welcomed Trump’s visit, he is the President of our greatest ally and I grateful for his support especially on Brexit. Rather him than Juncker or any of that crowd.

    The Brexit White paper was presented and appears to please nobody including the voters, surprise, surprise. The voters view is summed up well by the piece on Britain Elects entitled ” Theresa May has lost the first week of her Chequers war”. It has even made Farage (who also says it as it is like Trump) the impetus to think about returning to UKIP. It certainly doesn’t reflect the referendum result which was to leave the EU. I have let my MP have my view on these ridiculous proposals but I will remain a member for the time being as I certainly would not want a Corbyn government as that would be a disaster for the UK IMO. It seems clear that we are now likely to be unable to strike a satisfactory trade deal and will leave the EU on WTO terms. The Irish will then get a hard border and of course that will be their own fault and that of the EU. Economically it will be painful for both the UK and the EU although I suspect that in the longer term the greatest negative effect will be on the EU. It could even spell the beginning of the end for that organisation, something that would bother me not one iota, indeed it would please me enormously. When we voted to leave the EU I was indifferent to it, just wanted to leave it. Now like many in the party, I loath it for what it is, an corrupt undemocratic bureaucracy.

    There were good signs that the UK economy was picking up momentum after a quiet period due to the dreadful weather in the first part of the year. No doubt the OBR and IMF forecasts will prove to be as wrong as they usually are.

    The garden and the allotments continue to be a delight. It is good to be able to get away from all the politics and do something really satisfying.

    Not such a good week for England sports men and women, we lost to Croatia who played better on the night and our cricketers, both men and women lost one and won one.
    See you next week.

  5. Fascinating week watching President Trump perform. There is much about the President that I don’t like but I do like his plain speaking. Very refreshing in a politician. He certainly shook up NATO and its members with a threat of US withdrawal if they other NATO countries did not up their defence spending to 2% of GDP immediately and 4% in the longer term. He then made his long-awaited visit to the UK and spelt out a clear analysis of May’s Brexit proposals and how there might not be a trade deal with the USA on the basis of the Chequers accord. He also pointed out what a bad Mayor of London Sadiq Khan was, echoing what Peter Oborne said last week. On all three points cases he was absolutely correct IMO.
    During his visit, various Rentamobs demonstrated against him, with all the usual suspect groups present. No doubt most of the demonstrators, also voted to Remain in the EU referendum, the idiots. I notice Corbyn joined one of the demonstrations, what a disgrace that man is. Of course, people have the right to protest peaceably, and I would defend that right, but personally I welcomed Trump’s visit, he is the President of our greatest ally and I grateful for his support especially on Brexit. Rather him than Juncker or any of that crowd.

    The Brexit White paper was presented and appears to please nobody including the voters, surprise, surprise. The voters view is summed up well by the piece on Britain Elects entitled ” Theresa May has lost the first week of her Chequers war”. It has even made Farage (who also says it as it is like Trump) the impetus to think about returning to UKIP. It certainly doesn’t reflect the referendum result which was to leave the EU. I have let my MP have my view on these ridiculous proposals but I will remain a member for the time being as I certainly would not want a Corbyn government as that would be a disaster for the UK IMO. It seems clear that we are now likely to be unable to strike a satisfactory trade deal and will leave the EU on WTO terms. The Irish will then get a hard border and of course that will be their own fault and that of the EU. Economically it will be painful for both the UK and the EU although I suspect that in the longer term the greatest negative effect will be on the EU. It could even spell the beginning of the end for that organisation, something that would bother me not one iota, indeed it would please me enormously. When we voted to leave the EU I was indifferent to it, just wanted to leave it. Now like many in the party, I loath it for what it is, an corrupt undemocratic bureaucracy.

    There were good signs that the UK economy was picking up momentum after a quiet period due to the dreadful weather in the first part of the year. No doubt the OBR and IMF forecasts will prove to be as wrong as they usually are.

    The garden and the allotments continue to be a delight. It is good to be able to get away from all the politics and do something really satisfying.

    Not such a good week for England sports men and women, we lost to Croatia who played better on the night and our cricketers, both men and women lost one and won one.
    See you next week.

  6. The Other Howard,
    Hello, and I see recent events have got your fighting spirit up again.

    In your piece you seem to consider it is very important for the Uk to make a new trade deal with the US, because you see this as a problem with May’s plan, because it would prevent this. As Trump probably correctly pointed out.

    However, you seem to be saying that you prefer the situation where we make a deal with the US and no deal with the EU to the reverse.

    Why is this? because surely the far more important trading partner to the UK is and always will be the EU?

    I agree however that the UK will have to choose whether to make a deal with the EU or with the US. It cannot do both.

    But I also disagree with leavers that outside of the EU the Uk would be able to make deals more advantageous to the UK than the EU makes for its members. Much more likely the reverse.

    So in reality, the likely choice is a trade deal with the US as now, and no deal with the Eu. Or a trade deal with the US as now and a deal with the EU as now.

  7. @PTRP – apologies – my post wasn’t completely accurate as you suggest. The Posted Workers Directive doesn’t obviate the need to meet legal Minimum Wage Regulations in the host country as you say, but interpretations by the ECJ have confirmed that the PWD can be used to undercut other labour agreements in host countries – this was the point I was seeking to make.

    In effect, where there is an agreed rate for labour in one country, the PWD allows companies to ignore that agreement, and other agreements like collective pay bargaining, recognition of unions, national pay rates etc, by shipping foreign workers in, so long s they meet the legal Minimum Wage Regulations.

    In addition, the ECJ has ruled that strike action from host nation employees (in the case in point, ones made redundant by a company replacing them with cheaper foreign workers under the PWD which ignored long established union recognition agreements) may be illegal as it infringes the companies rights of association. The ECJ effectively banned a union from striking to prevent it’s members losing jobs to other lower paid EU workers.

    That remains pretty tawdry stuff, especially considering the EU member states cover such a wide range of income disparities. Movement of labour needs to be accompanied by protections in those higher wage countries, otherwise businesses will trouser the benefits and workers will see their living standards decline.

  8. Rumours are that the 1922 committee has 40 letters and will receive at least the further 8 required this week. At which point, Boris Johnson will launch his leadership bid and the Tories will start a leadership contest going into the Summer recess.

    If this is true, I think the Tories will suffer in polls and Labour will move towards a double digit lead.

    Theresa May is said to have enough support to win, but I wonder whether a candidate other than Boris, might be preferred as someone that is trusted more to take Brexit forward. Is there someone well liked by Tories on either side of the EU divide ?

  9. TOH

    It is ludicrous that you would rather cosy up to that dangerous and unpredictable loose cannon Trump than stay aligned to our European neighbours.

    Your views sum up everything that is wrong about the Brexit Anglophile fantasy.

    We would be a vassal state of the US with very little influence.

    I think you are a Russian Bot. It’s the only logical explanation.

  10. Anglophile = anglosphere

  11. Absolutely delicious story from Britain’s finest Westminster journalist:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-hq-used-facebook-ads-to-deceive-jeremy-corbyn-during-election-campaign-grlx75c27

    The gist is that, during the last election campaign, Labour HQ used targeted Facebook ads *on their own members* to give them the impression that their online messaging was more left-wing than it really was.

    A genius move, something that most certainly helped preserve the impressive unity Labour kept during that election campaign and delivered extra seats as a result, but unfortunately also something that Corbyn’s fluffers can now complain was a sabotage that cost them victory.

  12. Good morning all from a rather dull and very muggy Clarkston East Renfrewshire.

    Nice to be back in Scotland and lovely welcome I received, unlike Trump.

    BILL
    “It seems Professor Curtice was right when after the local elections he said ‘The Conservatives have to deliver the Brexit the Leave voters voted for”
    ___________

    I think even the most detached person from politics would have came to the same conclusion as Curtice. Stating the obvious me thinks!

  13. While the difficulties TN’s Government were facing were with a Tory poll lead, Tm was safer.

    If the next few polls confirm a change from Tory lead to Labour lead, that really will upset Tory MPs.

    I think things may well start to happen shortly, in line with @R Huckle’s thinking above. (Not sure of the Labour double digit though..)

  14. @ALEC

    I understand the point that you were trying to make and as others have said local laws apply in the labour market and ECJ ruling basically back that ruling hence in Germany and Sweden local laws apply. The EU has been slow to close all the loophole and as some are closed others are opened.

    As I said I know legal advisors and lawyers dealing with this on a daily basis. The ruling are not as simple as you make out and basically because the lw was meant to based a minimum one legal advisor pointed out it application has become a mess in some aspects but the simple point has been that individual countries can and do make the directives works better even the UK has made changes to protect their workers and we cannot say that the Tories are the kings of promoting workers rights.

  15. The more I read the more it seems that TM is now entering a perfect storm of problems, In all my years of watching and being involved in politics as this situation is unique.

    If I could take the liberty of prarphrasing Churchill:

    For Theresa May, this is probably neither the end nor the beginning. But it is most probably the beginning of the end.

  16. TONYBTG
    TOH

    “It is ludicrous that you would rather cosy up to that dangerous and unpredictable loose cannon Trump than stay aligned to our European neighbours.

    Your views sum up everything that is wrong about the Brexit Anglophile fantasy.

    We would be a vassal state of the US with very little influence.

    I think you are a Russian Bot. It’s the only logical explanation”
    ________________

    To be honest the UK is stuck between a rock and a very hard place. I agree with you on Trump but lets be honest here…the EU ain’t no saint. In fact they are becoming more and more authoritarian in their approach to member states.

    Greece, they bullied….

    UK, the EU are trying to frustrate Brexit along with some daft Tories and the establishment. It’s been said by both leavers and re- moaners… ie Piers Morgan.

    Italy, the EU tried to interfere in their election by approving an opposition fiance secretary

    Scotland…the EU interfered with the independence referendum.

    And today, the EU are playing hosts to fascists such as the Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko while Trump is cosying up to my ol pal Kim Jung Un and back home he’s putting kids into cages at the US/Mexico border…

    Both the EU and Trump as far as I’m concerned can take a run and jump into the long turf at Turnberry.

    As for THE OTHER HOWARD being a Russian bot!!…No I’m afraid not..internet bot’s don’t tend to allotments. ;-)

  17. Allan Christie: “Nice to be back in Scotland and lovely welcome I received, unlike Trump.”

    Fake news. I, Donald J Trump, arrived in Scotland and hundreds of people were there to meet me. And they’d all brought loads of banners along, and they were so excited they were literally shouting to me. I mean, it wasn’t as impressive as that huge balloon the Londoners had for me, but still, it was pretty clear this was the bigliest reception anyone had received since the greatest Americans of all time, the Beatles.

  18. Danny

    “Scotland and Ireland are special cases because they are deliberately over represented because of their small size”

    That hasn’t been the case in Scotland since the 1986 Constituencies Act was passed, when the minimum number of seats in Scotland was abolished.

    The present number of seats in Scotland required the Boundary Commission to use the electoral quota for England for the calculation of the number of seats, which would have been 57.

    The additional 2 seats are unrelated to Scotland’s size, but to the provisions in the Act for Orkney & Shetland, together with the complex geography of the sparsely populated Highlands and the existence of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar as a separate local authority.

  19. @ TONYBTG

    “For Theresa May, this is probably neither the end nor the beginning. But it is most probably the beginning of the end.”

    TM is a big beast, fatally wounded, but still too strong for the little hunters to bring down yet.

    They’re tracking her as she heads deeper into the mire…..

  20. Correction

    While the difficulties TM’s Government were facing were with a Tory poll lead, TM was safer.

    If the next few polls confirm a change from Tory lead to Labour lead, that really will upset Tory MPs.

    I think things may well start to happen shortly, in line with @R Huckle’s thinking above. (Not sure of the Labour double digit though..)

  21. @TOH – “He then made his long-awaited visit to the UK and spelt out a clear analysis of May’s Brexit proposals and how there might not be a trade deal with the USA on the basis of the Chequers accord…….. he was absolutely correct IMO.”

    Once again, @TOH demonstrates his inability to do detail.

    I’m fascinated quite what Trump’s ‘clear analysis’ here is, because he said several completely contradictory things about May’s white paper and the impact this would have on any potential US/UK trade deal. He ended up admitting that it wouldn’t prevent a trade deal being negotiated and that he would give the UK a great deal, also saying that make great things that he wants to buy, and that May was doing a great job.

    @TOH either didn’t read the details or is too thick to understand that Trump said two totally opposing things. His definition of Trump’s intervention as a ‘clear analysis’ is therefore deeply flawed. Indeed, Trump’s entire strategy in any area of diplomacy is to be unclear and contradictory – I don’t think @TOH has quite got this yet.

  22. If there were any significant examples of British workers losing their jobs to lower-entitlement workers shipped in by EU27 companies under the Posted Workers Directive, you might expect the cases to have been trumpeted by the Leave campaign. Does the failure of that dog to bark in the night tell us something?

    Perhaps Alec, who IIRC raised the point, can give us some examples of the PWD’s harmful effects on UK workers or businesses. And explain why the evolution of the PWD, via ECJ rulings, EC amendments and national implementation, is not an example of EU flexibility at work. It might also be instructive to learn what part the UK government, as a heavyweight in the EU, played in the creation of the original PWD. Were we for it, against it, or indifferent? What did the UK parliament have to say about it?

  23. Allan Christie

    “As for THE OTHER HOWARD being a Russian bot!!…No I’m afraid not..internet bot’s don’t tend to allotments. ;-)”

    Ahhh, but do we have any proof that TOH tends an allotment?

    Maybe we should add a captur security field to enter before any postings are allowed.

    :-)

    I agree with you to some extent that the EU is not perfect. But what is? The UK is not perfect. What in life is? I believe that the EU on balance, is more good than bad. That’s no reason to throw it all away.

  24. @DANNY
    “What democracy? The Uk is a monarchy and we are all subjects with no rights.
    We are only citizens with rights of the EU, but there is a plan to leave that.”

    I’m no great fan of the monarchy, but this is factually incorrect. British subject status was abolished (for all except a tiny number mostly with a particular arcane connection by birth to the former Irish Free State) in 1981.

    We have been UK citizens ever since.

  25. @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    We create the rules so it was the CoM that green lighted these things the EU is a collection of states not an organisation independant of them they get their direction from CoM and ther EU is used by them to speak as one entity. That is the shared sovereignty part. when you say the EU you mean also our government.

    As to the individual points
    Greece, they bullied….
    Greece commited fraud they were reporting 3% deficits when they had 15% deficits as soon as they were found out people stopped lending them money and began to demand the money they were owed. Now that is far different from spain for example who had a surplus before the crash and even Ireland that had an overheating economy that the government did nothing about

    UK, the EU are trying to frustrate Brexit along with some daft Tories and the establishment. It’s been said by both leavers and re- moaners… ie Piers Morgan.

    So both the US and the EU state positions on brexit both prefered for not to happen both said that the UK’s position would not be as per the leavers had said it would be and both were correct. we would be negotiating with these very people and we in the UK were making assertions as to how they would act. remember Davis saying it would be the easiest negotiation in the world to do.

    So the EU pointed out it would not and the Uk would not have all the benefits without paying has been a clear point of reference. Now one could argue that that was interference but in truth they were quite mild

    Scotland…the EU interfered with the independence referendum.

    Again I personally thought that the interference was a correction. the independence movement said it would be easy for scotland to take a place in the EU and in truth it turned out the process would not be a swift or as easy as intimated

    Simply put all of them were UK government policies at the time
    and are now we seem to blame the nebulous EU because it is easy but we should put the blame back to where it is our government.

  26. @PETEB
    “Labour’s deliberate ambiguity is very cynical.”

    I think cynical is a little unreasonable.

    Labour’s position is mediated by reality.

    It opposed Brexit in the referendum and lost. And before that it opposed holding the referendum at all in the 2015 GE and lost.

    You’ve got to fight the current battle, not be in denial about the one before last. That’s not cynicism, it’s basic common sense.

    As to ambiguous, I don’t buy this at all. People who say this really mean that Labour’s position isn’t the one they want it to take. Usually, because it isn’t “remainy” enough.

    It’s certainly true that Labour’s current position isn’t “remainy” enough for many of its supporters (and for many of its opponents). That does not make the position ambiguous. It just makes it one they don’t personally like.

  27. @PTRP – agreed, but I really didn’t want to get bogged down on one small area of free movement – I cited that as one example.

    The point I seek to make is the wider point that there are serious adverse effects to both host and donor regions from large scale economic migration, the EU and many EU supporters have failed to recognise this, and to compound matters, all too often when legitimate and genuine concerns about his are raised the response is to label all of them under the racist/xenophobe heading.

    Ultimately, it was this failure of the pro European/centre left that led to Brexit, in my view.

  28. @ R&D

    I obviously share some of the pups scepticism about the lasting nature of the UKIP rise in the polls but I don’t think we can so easily dismiss this.

    In a sense you could say that UKIP voters from 2015 lent their vote to the Tories to see through Brexit and if they don’t see Brexit seen through the way they want then they will be off again.

    I guess the big query must be how many of them don’t care whether it is a May government or a Corbyn government and how many just vote on principal. Also of course what happens in the marginals- I do have a theory about the Tory failure to make gains in Brexit marginals in 2017 that the UKIP vote was already squeezed on those areas in 2015 so less swing to be had on those.

    I’d have thought that human nature meant there could easily be 5-10% of people on the right and 5-10% of people on the left willing to vote for a party they knew wasn’t going to get into power but stick to their ideals.

  29. Alec

    “there are serious adverse effects to both host and donor regions from large scale economic migration”

    True, just as there are significant beneficial effects.

    “the EU and many EU supporters have failed to recognise this”

    One could equally say “the UK and many UK supporters have failed to recognise this”, or that no one should move from their village of origin.

    Indeed, if humanoids had just stayed in Olduvai Gorge …….

  30. @ALEC

    The point I seek to make is the wider point that there are serious adverse effects to both host and donor regions from large scale economic migration, the EU and many EU supporters have failed to recognise this, and to compound matters, all too often when legitimate and genuine concerns about his are raised the response is to label all of them under the racist/xenophobe heading.

    My point was that we can not tame irrational behaviour. As per the poll on immigration our issue about immigration is complex and often contradictory. take it form me I have had too many of this conversation

    person:Your not like other black people
    me: how many black people do you know?
    person: Just you
    me: so how do you know I am not like other black people?
    person:mmmmmm, I don’t know it what I read in the papers, etc

    from that sign like no blacks no dog no Irish can/did happen the problem we have with immigration as problems that we have with our economy, a lack of immigration does not solve it and indeed basically makes it worse (our GDP tanks for example)

    I understand the argument about immigration and it’s effect on host communities I just don’t buy it. For example people move from places where there is no opportunity to places where there is all the time internally. My local town’s growth is based on it. Ultimately the problem is that if you identify the person as different, then you basically have an immigration problem. since you need to housing schooling and all the other issues that people claim are caused by immigration. we have just as much a problem wit internal migration as we do with external migration we have failed to cope with that

    portishead has very few ‘immigrants’ but suffers more thanother places for lack of facilities and yet ask people in portishead about such thing as a railway station for the town they will tell you it predates expansion of the EU.

    has immigration made thing worse? yes but the problem was there and if we had no immigration the problem would still be there.

  31. Not sure if @TOH is still reading, but for those confused about Trump’s views on the potential US/UK trade deal, and his generally loose association with the truth, there are some easily accessible facts to ponder.

    This is what Trump said when he was standing next to Theresa May, after having described the Sun’s report of his comments on May, Brexit and a trade deal as ‘fake news’;

    “We have a tremendous opportunity to double, triple or quadruple trade. If they’re going to go a certain route, I just said I hope they will be able to trade with the US. I read reports that said that would not be possible, but after speaking with the PM and her representatives, it seems that will be possible.”

    So this is trump admitting that his earlier comments were wrong, and that he didn’t understand the white paper.

    Of May, he said “I said [in the Sun interview] that this incredible woman here is doing a fantastic job, a great job, and I mean that. I have gotten to know Theresa May much better over the last two days than the last year-and-a-half. I think she is a terrific woman and doing a terrific job …”

    If you need any education regarding Trump’s connection to truthfulness, the exchange between him, Melania, her press secretary and Jon Sopel is instructive.

    The question revolved around Trump’s press conference claim that he predicted the outcome of the Brexit result while at the official opening of Turnberry the day before the referendum. He wasn’t at Turnberry the day before the referendum – but he was there the day after, on 24th June 2016. This is a simple statement of fact, verifiable by dozens of sources.

    Stephanie Grisham, the press secretary for first lady Melania Trump, claimed that she had seen Trump’s prediction – which didn’t happen – with her own eyes. She even claimed to have photos.

    On Twitter, Jon Sopel said “Stephanie – I hate to argue as we were there together. He was NOT at Turnberry on the day before the referendum, as he said at the news conference. He was not there on polling day itself. He was there the day after, on Friday 24th. These are indisputable facts.”

    To which she replied – “Nope. I have photos. I also have a newspaper from the morning after Brexit. I remember sitting in a pub the night before, watching the results come in.”

    These are simple details that anyone – even @TOH – could access, and help to provide a more balanced view of Trump’s comments.

  32. ALEC

    @”I’m fascinated quite what Trump’s ‘clear analysis’ here is”

    I a fascinating interview by Marr, he asked to tell him what the advice from Trump was.

    She replied-He said-Sue the EU……….but don’t walk away.

    The interview was interesting, because if one listens carefully to the bits between her tongue twisting & ignores the impatient interruptions from Marr , she puts a persuasive case why:-

    * The EU “offers of EEA + & Canada fall short of Referendum & GFA principles .
    * Trade agreements with third parties will always be subject to the high regulatory standards UK would wish to maintain.

    But the stumbling delivery & failure to tell Marr to shut up while she gives a pithy summation of the key principles was a reminder of her vulmerability in a GE Campaign.

    I read DD this morning-so his differences with the Chequers paper can be summarised as :-

    * Mutual Recognition rather than Same Rule harmonisation.
    * Technology to solve the NI border problem.

    I think the second would be a tough sell to EU. On the first, I have read a bit about Mutual Recognition. Nice in principle but gives rise to endless disagreement & dispute. So the Arbitration Mechanism is key.

  33. Britain Elects have added UKIP VI to their Opinium list –

    LAB: 40% (-)
    CON: 36% (-6)
    UKIP: 8% (+5)

  34. Glad I prepared with a big stock of popcorn for the current political entertainment. Don’t get me wrong, I’m hugely worried about where the country will end up when the music stops, but you might as well enjoy the show while it lasts.

    My tuppence on the latest polls. I think the Tories should wait for a couple of weeks to see if the trend is real, don’t push the panic button too soon. But if it continues, I think the biggest problem for TM is not the national voting pattern, which can easily change again in 2-3 years time. Rather it’ll be the loss of support in her own party (and the papers that traditionally back the Tories). If the mood in the party is that a different sort of Brexit is needed, I don’t think she’ll last long. She’s tied herself so closely to this particular form of Brexit now that it just won’t be possible for her to lead on a vastly different version.

  35. via Britain Elects from Opinium

    If Theresa May resigns and is replaced by a new Conservative leader, should there be a new general election?

    Yes: 66%
    No: 34%

    Whether such a question is particularly meaningful is another matter.

  36. @COLIN

    * The EU “offers of EEA + & Canada fall short of Referendum & GFA principles .
    * Trade agreements with third parties will always be subject to the high regulatory standards UK would wish to maintain.

    Isn’t the problem that the second point you raise is point of dispute amongst those that championed leaving the EU in the first place and hence the reason that the CoM would want guarantees of the second point something that the agreement cannot do and that arbitration system may not do and often pretty much precludes any changes because the issues become too difficult

    So basically we become a rule taker with no vote. the basic principle is that unless we leave with no deal we lose more sovereignty than if we stayed. hence the argument about mutual recognition becomes key because then we can write our own laws and say they are the same within a certain latitude. the differences between DD and TM are not slight they hit the basis of promises made by leaver campaigners on sovereignty

    May is essentially making the best of a bad situation she cannot say leaving is stupid so she had to persist with a deal that pleases no one and gives everyone a massive slice of sandwich with a filling no one would want to eat

    The simple problem is we all know it is a crap deal but politically everyone is trying to save face. If this was a business meeting now we would have reversed the decision but as I pointed out the electorate will be two year behind the curve on this

  37. Opinium article here, tables are linked at the bottom.

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018/

  38. PTRP

    @”So basically we become a rule taker with no vote. ”

    Well that is a key question.
    And it is question-not a fact.

    May’s response is :-

    The “Rule Book” hasn’t changed much for years.
    UK plc is already adhering to product regs-has to to trade.
    UK government is aligned with non-product rules on day of exit.
    Future changes detrimental to UK interests will be rejected by Parliament-after considering the consequences of rejection. HoC will presumably vote on balance of interest to UK.

  39. New thread

  40. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    BILL
    “It seems Professor Curtice was right when after the local elections he said ‘The Conservatives have to deliver the Brexit the Leave voters voted for”
    ___________
    I think even the most detached person from politics would have came to the same conclusion as Curtice. Stating the obvious me thinks!

    ——————-

    I absolutely agree with you. The point I was trying to demonstrate is that our Prime Minister and many of her colleagues did not. What is more is now they are going into overdrive to try and pick up a share of the ‘Remainer’ vote – at the greater loss of the Leave voters from their voter base.

    (For clarity I should declare that I was a member of the Conservative Party {having voted Conservative consistently for 41 years} until last month when I resigned and on release of Merkel’s White Paper I joined UKIP.)

  41. Alec
    I accept that you are a secret fan of mine as you keep posting to me, but I think your response is as usual rather childish. You clearly do not understand me at all, or World Affairs for that matter. Trumps’s meaning on Brexit is very clear to me, and most others, but obviously not to you. When I have the time I will try and educate you a bit but it won’t be anytime soon as I am too busy.

    It actually amazes me that you cannot understand Trump, his views and his strategy, it’s really rather straightforward.

  42. @TOH

    As you have such insight into Trump’s ‘thinking’, perhaps you can tell us (re his suggestion to May that she should not negotiate with the EU, but sue it) what court he had in mind for this legal action, and on what grounds he thought she could sue.

  43. peterw: It’s certainly true that Labour’s current position isn’t “remainy” enough for many of its supporters (and for many of its opponents). That does not make the position ambiguous. It just makes it one they don’t personally like.

    For me. Labour’s position is
    ** Not ‘remainy’ enough
    ** Totally ambiguous
    ** A position I do not personally like

    To me, that is a hat-trick

  44. @COLIN


    Well that is a key question.
    And it is question-not a fact.

    I understand the the idea but we do have any control of the rules that is a fact.

    May’s response is :-

    The “Rule Book” hasn’t changed much for years.
    UK plc is already adhering to product regs-has to to trade.
    UK government is aligned with non-product rules on day of exit.
    Future changes detrimental to UK interests will be rejected by Parliament-after considering the consequences of rejection. HoC will presumably vote on balance of interest to UK.

    None of those change the fact that we have no control over the rules

    I understand why May is selling it as such but it even in the HoC and in interviews Raab said we will not be able to influence the rules. All the Uk can do is withdraw from the agreement. Now that may be OK. but it essentially leaves us in a take or leave it scenario with the punishment/sanction to be determined.

    The point of sophistry over the rule taking part is clearly a problem because the agreement that May has does mean that we obey a set of rules that we have no control over now one would argue that these rules are sensible but then the question is why are we leaving? it is just a logical disaster. We have to day it is not a fact because simply put if you concede it is a fact it blows much of the argument out of the water as to why we are leaving.

    As I said to you before we will be told it is raining when someone is p1ssing on our backs.

    May response is that it does not matter that we don’t make the rules which can be argued but the fact is that we don’t make the rules and we end up accepting them because on balance it is not worth breaking a trade agreement for

  45. @COLIN


    Well that is a key question.
    And it is question-not a fact.

    I understand the the idea but we do have any control of the rules that is a fact.

    May’s response is :-

    The “Rule Book” hasn’t changed much for years.
    UK plc is already adhering to product regs-has to to trade.
    UK government is aligned with non-product rules on day of exit.
    Future changes detrimental to UK interests will be rejected by Parliament-after considering the consequences of rejection. HoC will presumably vote on balance of interest to UK.

    None of those change the fact that we have no control over the rules

    I understand why May is selling it as such but it even in the HoC and in interviews Raab said we will not be able to influence the rules. All the Uk can do is withdraw from the agreement. Now that may be OK. but it essentially leaves us in a take or leave it scenario with the punishment/sanction to be determined.

    The point of sophistry over the rule taking part is clearly a problem because the agreement that May has does mean that we obey a set of rules that we have no control over now one would argue that these rules are sensible but then the question is why are we leaving? it is just a logical disaster. We have to day it is not a fact because simply put if you concede it is a fact it blows much of the argument out of the water as to why we are leaving.

    As I said to you before we will be told it is raining when someone is p1ssing on our backs.

    May response is that it does not matter that we don’t make the rules which can be argued but the fact is that we don’t make the rules and we end up accepting them because on balance it is not worth breaking a trade agreement for

  46. @COLIN


    Well that is a key question.
    And it is question-not a fact.

    I understand the the idea but we do have any control of the rules that is a fact.

    May’s response is :-

    The “Rule Book” hasn’t changed much for years.
    UK plc is already adhering to product regs-has to to trade.
    UK government is aligned with non-product rules on day of exit.
    Future changes detrimental to UK interests will be rejected by Parliament-after considering the consequences of rejection. HoC will presumably vote on balance of interest to UK.

    None of those change the fact that we have no control over the rules

    I understand why May is selling it as such but it even in the HoC and in interviews Raab said we will not be able to influence the rules. All the Uk can do is withdraw from the agreement. Now that may be OK. but it essentially leaves us in a take or leave it scenario with the punishment/sanction to be determined.

    The point of sophistry over the rule taking part is clearly a problem because the agreement that May has does mean that we obey a set of rules that we have no control over now one would argue that these rules are sensible but then the question is why are we leaving? it is just a logical disaster. We have to day it is not a fact because simply put if you concede it is a fact it blows much of the argument out of the water as to why we are leaving.

    As I said to you before we will be told it is raining when someone is p1ssing on our backs.

    May response is that it does not matter that we don’t make the rules which can be argued but the fact is that we don’t make the rules and we end up accepting them because on balance it is not worth breaking a trade agreement for

  47. PTRP

    @”Now that may be OK. but it essentially leaves us in a take or leave it scenario with the punishment/sanction to be determined.”

    Do you know of any Free Trade Agreement between countries which allows either party to depart at will from the negotiated level playing field of regulation & still retain unfettered access under the Agreement.?

  48. Bill,
    ” What is more is now they are going into overdrive to try and pick up a share of the ‘Remainer’ vote – at the greater loss of the Leave voters from their voter base.”

    Ah, but they may consider although the voters dont know it yet, that the leaver vote is as good as lost already.

  49. @PTRP
    For me. Labour’s position is
    ** Not ‘remainy’ enough
    ** Totally ambiguous
    ** A position I do not personally like

    I don’t think that’s a logically coherent trio. If you believe it to be ambiguous, how can you conclude it’s not ‘remainy’ enough?

    If you know you don’t like it, how can you also hold it to be ambiguous?

    It’s just a matter of precision of language. Let’s leave that to lazy journalists. “Ambiguous” isn’t some general perjorative. It doesn’t just mean “not for me”. It has a particular meaning, and that meaning is one that I don’t think Labour’s Brexit policy should attract. Nor, any more, should the Government’s.

  50. @PTRP
    “The simple problem is we all know it is a crap deal but politically everyone is trying to save face. If this was a business meeting now we would have reversed the decision but as I pointed out the electorate will be two year behind the curve on this”

    Spot on. And you have the double whammy that as a result not only will it be too late when they get there, but they won’t get there unless it becomes too late.

    That, in essence, is why neither major party can blink first and be isolated on this. If Danny is right, and there is a secret dance going on here whereby they march in lock step, fine. But neither one can take the blame for telling the electorate it is wrong when the electorate doesn’t yet think it is without taking a massive hit. Only the electorate can do that. There’s little sign it’s done so in the last two years, so no reason for me why it will in the next six months.

1 7 8 9 10