YouGov’s regular poll for the Times this week shows another Labour lead, with topline figures of CON 36%(-1), LAB 41%(+2), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 7%(+1). Fieldwork was on Monday and Tuesday, and changes are from the middle of last week. We’ve now had four polls with fieldwork after the Davis/Johnson resignations – two from YouGov, one each from Opinium and Deltapoll – and all four have shown the Conservatives falling back behind Labour.

YouGov also found 40% in favour of a referendum on whether or not to accept the final deal, 42% of people were opposed – the highest level of support for a second referendum that YouGov have found so far with this tracker.

There was less support for Justine Greening’s idea of a “three-way” referendum between remain, Theresa May’s deal or no deal: only 36% thought that should happen, 47% were opposed. In the event it did go ahead, people said they would vote to stay – on first preferences support stands at Remain 50%, Leave with the deal 17%, Leave without the deal 33%. Once leaving with the deal has been eliminated and second preferences reallocated, the final figures would be 55% remain, 45% leave with no deal.


1,819 Responses to “YouGov/Times – CON 36, LAB 41, LDEM 9, UKIP 7”

1 34 35 36 37
  1. Steamdrivenandy: “Those that are keen seem to want to sell to us but not vice versa.

    I’ve often tried to get brexiteers here to provide a list of those countries with which they expect us to do trade deals which are to our net benefit, ie which will increase our sales to them more than their sales to us.

    So far, no takers.

  2. @ALEC

    personally I think the EU will not do a vague deal because the real problem is that the UK will be in limbo. The vague deal would say what? That we agree that we are leaving but not yet…. That can carry on indefinitely would you invest in the UK under those conditions? will we be able to strike trade deals under those conditions? will we have a say in the chnage in the EU under those conditon will it just be a defacto EU minus the vote?

    The point has always been that both the EU and the UK have to make a choice at some point we have to bite the bullet. part of the real problem is that once we had the referendum and the fact that it was close it meant that much of what we would do would mean the worst of all world. The simple premise is we have to leave because we voted for it, but we don’t want to leave because it would have a negative effect on us. In the end the actual indecision the lack of policy and a strategic view seems to have hurt us as much as leaving/staying. it is the fact of limbo which is the worry.

    Now people keep saying that people who want clarity of direction are now being called extremists. however I believe that this situation as as extreme as leaving or staying. Look at SMMT figures for investment. we have several models drawing down which should mean increased investment and actually we have seen an investment collapse (i don’t think that is hyperbole say collapse even).

    The reality is at some point we have to face the question and answer it what we are doing is deflecting and postponing a tough question. We know there is risk in staying and there are risk in leaving but I think the biggest risk now is just not making a decision and it appear that most people just don’t want to do that.

    As a coach they say that to be good at something you need have great decision making and execution. At the moment we are not making a decision an thus in truth we cannot execute. For some people that is a relief in that they appear to therefor not have to be wrong but in the end we have to make a decision imagine this going on for years. it has already paralysed debate, government, pretty left major issue such that just have not been addressed. It is a disaster.

    if I take the premise that we are leaving because we voted for it (I ay that as a remainer), I need to know what come next do I still have FoM to work on contracts in Germany in 2019. Do I need to have a business visa etc, in the end limbo does not help anyone yes it is a difficult decision but it was always that.

    I am no extremist but this has got to end at some point at the moment it appears that I am an extremist for wanting that clarity

  3. Alec

    Given our experience so far of May’s ability to continually ‘kick the can down the road’ how could we ever have expected anything other than a fudged Brexit from the undisputed Queen of Fudge.

    Such an exit will enable May to spin to the public that she has delivered on the ‘will of the people’ whilst at the same time making the outcome vague enough for it to be difficult for anyone to vote it down in Parliament.

    If this is what happens, it remains to be seen how this is reflected in the Comservative VI when people realise that “Brexit means fudge”

  4. Passtherockplease

    “The reality is at some point we have to face the question and answer it what we are doing is deflecting and postponing a tough question”

    Exactly. And this is just what May is very good at.

    At the end of the day, this might just be the solution stops the Tory Party from splitting.

    Not saying that it’s in the national interest – but then neither is a no-deal outcome.

  5. For a fudged Brexit, can I offer the name “Fuxit”

    :-)

  6. That does seem to be the intention, given the chequers polling though I’m not sure the first part is going to wash with the public at all really.

    And of course it won’t solve the tory party’s big issue so will it actually stop a split, or merely postpone it?

    Tory VI dropping is not going to be very good for cohesion.

  7. JamesB

    “And of course it won’t solve the tory party’s big issue so will it actually stop a split, or merely postpone it?”

    For May, postponement is the always going to be the best option.

    I’m not saying it’s the best option for the country, of even the best option for the Tories longer term. But it’s the best option for May – it might even enable her to maintain her residency of Number 10 for a little while longer. So far, her strategy seems to be designed to prolong her time as PM.

    She will continue to enjoy the trappings of being in office and being able to swan about on the world stage whilst at the same time not really being ‘in power’

    Just my opinion of course. There are other opinions available.

  8. “This also highlights this idiocy of the leavers. They should have realised that their best bet would be to accept a fudged deal and not be so concerned about red lines etc. Instead, they are continuing with the no deal threat, which will simply mean remain once the impacts of a no deal become clear.”

    Alec – quite!

    The Flexcit leavers strategy was much better. Do it stage by stage, with first stage being move to EFTA. Sure, this would have taken decades. However, it would have been much easier to do at each stage, and considerably less dangerous.

    After the referendum, I was very much in the category of “OK, if you really want to, get on with it then”. And because of Northern Ireland, the only easy way to do that was to push early and strongly in negotiations for EFTA. That would have let us breeze through the WA.

    Sure, it makes us a “vassal state”, etc, but so what. It makes it clear we’re not in a federal Europe, gives us some control over some more things, and gives us time to build on that position over the years. Makes it easier to fully leave in the event of some disaster.

    Instead though, it has now reached the point where I’m actually scared. It’s too late to join EFTA in time (according to Flexcit’s Dr North who actually reads trade treaties). The Government seemingly hasn’t planned as much as other European countries for “No Deal” (whether WTO or “No Deal At All”) and MPs don’t seem to get how dangerous the situation is.

    So we either have to get past the NI problem (by breaking one of our red lines) and have a transition period to implement it. Or we need to Remain, which is politically horrible for people, but they’ll just have to stop moaning and accept referendums aren’t magic spells. You also need a Government capable of delivery, which UKIP with the best will in the world really isn’t.

    In practice, I think we’ll do one of those but the EU will let us fudge it and pretend to voters that we haven’t really done it (I believe the similar Swiss referendum issue ended that way). I’m optimistic this will happen in the urgency of final negotiations. However, I still think there’s a decent chance (say 1 in 3) of it going really bad… Even Leavers think this, you can tell as sensible people on this forum are stockpiling food.

    I’ll have to live with half my friends and family having voted to endanger my food supply for no good reason. I can forgive them, but it would be much easier to do so if they were contrite first (rather than thinking I’ll be nostalgic for their childhood memories of rationing in the war), which these days some of them are looking like they are.

  9. http://flip.it/wGO8K0

    Northamptonshire CC are preparing a drastic cut to services.

    No doubt they will continue to erect ‘slippery road’ and ‘deer crossing’ signs regardless. A vital service compared to looking after the sick and elderly.

  10. Joe James B

    “The problems with Brexit are being caused be the intransigence of the EU”

    Well we are the ones leaving. And we were told by the Brexiteers it would be easy. I don’t think we can start blaming the EU for problems of our own making.

    If it was France that was leaving – I don’t think the UK would be very happy if the French asked for all their previous benefits of membership.

    Oh, sorry, of course, the EU are to blame for everything that’s gone wrong in Britain over the last 40 years.

  11. Millie,

    “No doubt they will continue to erect ‘slippery road’ and ‘deer crossing’ signs regardless. A vital service compared to looking after the sick and elderly.”

    As they say in the airline industry;
    “If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident!”

    If a Council is informed and aware of a risk and doesn’t take action it is liable and a few hundred pounds to warn people can saw a life or less important but worth noting in a budget debate tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    for example for the cost of a tap (about £45);

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35050790

    Peter.

  12. @ Joe James B

    “The problems with brexit are being caused by the intransigence of the EU.”

    with the risk of being called “pretentious” one thinks

    Partisan? Moi?

  13. JOE JAMES B,

    “The problems with brexit are being caused by the intransigence of the EU.”

    The problem with WW2 was the intransigence of the UK!
    We just insisted in not surrendering!

    Peter.

  14. @Joe James B

    At least @Colin and @Alec et al (to include both sides) attempt to argue their partisan points with some factual information that can be tested. Simple sloganizing has no place on this site! Grrr!

  15. ”EU is wanting to help May secure a deal that leaves the future relationship very vague and still subject to substantive negotiations in the transition period”

    This has been my expectation for some time.

    The EU get money and businesses in their members states that trade with the UK get transition so they can operate as now.

    Tory leavers get to leave next March and time for ‘technical solutions’ to be found for customs arrangements while soft remainers in the Tory party get continuity and longer for demographic changes and possibly Bregrets to hopefully, from their stand point, move to a situation where reversal is possible.

    The words I have used is that the future framework document agreed to get to Transition is really just a political requirement to get to Transition when the real negotiations start.

    I may well be wrong but this has been my view for well over a year.

  16. ALEC

    @” Reports that hard core remainers (Clegg, Blair etc) are very concerned that the EU is wanting to help May secure a deal that leaves the future relationship very vague and still subject to substantive negotiations in the transition period”

    Don’t they read. ? Don’t they listen?

    “In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. ”

    Lisbon Treaty Article 50.

    Barnier consistently refers to a “Political Statement”. Only a few days ago Barnier’s team were reported to say this could be only 5 to 25 pages.

    It was never going to be a “Deal”. That will be fleshed out from the Political Statement about the Future Framework contained in the Withdrawal Agreement .

    The Transition Period was always a misnomer.It cannot be used by UKplc to plan transition to the new Relationship, because that will emerge during that transition.

  17. For Clegg of all people to express surprise that the EU is going to kick a can down the road is very funny.

    Do bears squat in the woods ?

  18. @TonyBTG
    ‘Fuxit’ – absolutely love it… I’m adopting this term!

    On the broader point, I am also feeling this ‘total fudge’ solution is the one that will be adopted – it suits the EU (‘you are so useless we will just have to let you have more tie to work out what you intend to do’ – and meanwhile we can carry on as before), it suits May (‘delivered on my red lines and pledge to the British people’), it suits most Tories (party is not riven by dissent).

    The one obvious group that get shafted is Labour, as they don’t get to force the Tories to jump one way or the other and alienate one or other chunk of their electorate (which appears to be their strategy to date).

    Can Labour engineer something that stops May from playing this card successfully? And will the right wing press go along with it or cry ‘foul’ and risk trashing the Tories?

  19. BFR,

    Corbyn and his entourage are shafted yes as they naively imo thought they could force a GE out of it.

    But 2-3 years after leaving date working as now while substantive negotiations are conducted has been Stamer’s position since Autumn 2016 pretty much.

  20. I should add that of course Labour will vote against as the 6 (cakist) tests are not met but that is just a necessary exercise and meaningless in the short term.

    Labour need to be able to say we warned against and voted against if it goes wrong. If it all turns out swimmingly no one will remember that Labour voted against and to the few that dod they can say ‘could have been even better deal’ or some other form of words that no -one will care about as GEs would be conducted in a post Brexit dominated environment in such a scenario.

  21. Big fat Ron

    “it suits May (‘delivered on my red lines and pledge to the British people’), ”

    But does Fuxit really deliver.

    I’m sure May will try and spin it so – but with this solution we will have merely delayed Brexit. We will still have freedom of movement, we will still be subject to the rules of the ECJ. It won’t be Brexit in March 2019 – things will just go on pretty much as they are now.

    I can’t see how May can say she’s delivered.

    I agree it will be bad news for Labour though as there probably won’t be an early election.

  22. JIM JAM

    @”of course Labour will vote against as the 6 (cakist) tests are not met but that is just a necessary exercise and meaningless in the short term.
    Labour need to be able to say we warned against and voted against if it goes wrong”

    I hope you won’t minding me comparing & contrasting that statement with one you made yesterday:

    ” some of those attacking Labour over anti-semitism within the party are opportunistic and in some cases using as a vehicle to attack Labour “

  23. @Colin – my reading of this is that Clegg et al simply want the Political Statement on the Future Framework to be sufficiently detailed to clearly identify the choices required, so that people can understand what the implications are. There is a big difference between a 5 page declaration and a 35 page one. (Around 30 pages difference, in fact :)).

    What I think is at stake is the remainers perception that some in the EU have decided to keep kicking the can down the road in order to get a withdrawal agreement signed. So, for example, a ‘proper’ declaration would include things like ‘the UK will agree to pay an annual fee and be subject to ECJ rules for participation in [specific programmes] X,Y and Z’, whereas a fudge might just raise continued negotiations on participation in X,Y and Z, without specifying we will have to pay and accept ECJ.

    The former would create a sh!tstorm amongst hard core leavers now, whereas the latter would allow them to continue pretending their red lines will be met in all circumstances.

    This is where hard core remainers interests diverge from the EU27. Once the WA is signed, that’s it – the EU have their NI backstop and £45(+)bn, with recourse to legal action if the UK refuses to pay, along with a non binding indication of what comes after the transition. Plus they’ve got 2 more years to prepare for no deal and turn the screws on the UK in the continued talks.

    If the declaration is written up in such a way that the hard core remainers can still pretend we can have cake and eat it, we leave the EU. The hard core remainers want the starkest of stark choices to be framed now, because they know which way the dice will tumble if a choice needs to be made.

  24. ALEC

    I would be surprised if the controversial areas of the ambiguity centre on Projects we wish continuing participation in . I don’t anticipate any problems there if detail + fee are present in the WA.

    No-I am anticipating the ambiguity to surround future trade relations. There will be massive chunks of detail to work out during transition & I fully expect some key principles to be hazy in the “Political Statement.”

  25. @Jim Jam

    I suspect the Tory / DUP alliance will get this through on the “meaningful vote” with or without Labour.

    Lashings of fudge cake all round, with a few token cherries for the ERG.

    As I’ve always said, there was always going to be a deal. Will the man or woman on the street notice any perceptible difference after Brexit? Of course not!

  26. Millie: cuts to local government have meant councils have had to enforce years of economic triage. It’s not their fault, it’s the national government’s.

    It must have been awful to be a local councillor since 2010. Whatever you want to do to invest in the future of your local community, tough – you’ve got no choice but to focus your dwindling resources on stopping everything falling over.

  27. Happy to be reminded Colin as both are true in my opinion.

    Whether there is moral equivalence with using racism opportunistically and vote in the HOC that does not affects outcomes is another question.

    To re-affirm, though, that my statement was part of a wider posts that expressed frustration at the way the party leadership have handled the issue of anti–Semitism being present, albeit in small amounts, within the membership.

  28. Agree Jones and there has been much wishful thinking on the left, I may even have got caught up in it occasionally but mine was more hope than expectation those times.

  29. Pretty good summary of why Land Value Tax is a good idea:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/scrap-council-tax-redistribute-wealth-fix-housing-market

    In fact, there are more good reasons to support LVT beyond those listed – chiefly that it discourages land banking by property developers.

  30. @polltroll

    Quite, I don’t think many realise quite how savage the local authority cuts have been. In Bristol the total council income has dropped from ~£415m to £370m since 2010. The government portion of that has dropped from about £230m down to £20m at most. The gap has been filled by council tax and business rates.

    Councils are legally required to provide a minimum level of certain services, maintenance of the local highway network in a safe condition is one of them. Perhaps some signs are excessive but it’s precaution against a potential for far more costly legal action later.

    The main burden is of course adult social care which is a bit over 50% of bristol’s expenditure. Most councils have cut back their provisions of this towards the bare legal minimum since 2010 and of course the resulting demand has simply fallen on the NHS instead.

  31. Polltroll,

    have the argument Elliot makes isn’t actually for LVT..it’s for rolling revaluation.

    We don’t have revaluation because the losers would revolt, so until politicians deal with not having the courage to revalue LVT is going nowhere.

    If Council Tax had moved with property prices we would certainly have a different property price structure to today but we can’t say how different.

    Equally you can’t talk about LVT just in terms of housing, because it also covers commercial land, infrastructure and agriculture.

    Get in wrong and farming goes into crisis and our Airports go bust!

    Peter.

  32. JIM JAM

    Thanks.

    Morals & Politics are not to be confused in my humble opinion.

    Political opportunism is always something a party complains about when their opponents use it.

    Corbyn has conducted Labour Brexit Policy purely against the objective of bringing down the government & getting a GE. As you hint yourself , the 6 tests are designed to be bullet proof.

    Is this on higher moral ground than picking away at his obsession with Israel & Palestine with anything which comes to hand , in order to discredit him in Parliament ?

    Don’t see it myself.

  33. @Polltroll

    ‘Millie: cuts to local government have meant councils have had to enforce years of economic triage. It’s not their fault, it’s the national government’s.
    It must have been awful to be a local councillor since 2010. Whatever you want to do to invest in the future of your local community, tough – you’ve got no choice but to focus your dwindling resources on stopping everything falling over.’

    Well yes, and no. Being a councillor is indeed a thankless task, especially in times of reduced circumstances. But they still festoon our roads with signage that is pointless. A recent HoL report concluded that a third of all signs on our roads serve no purpose whatsoever. They described it as a ‘national scandal’.

    Yet the obsession of local councils with relentless signage continues unabated.

    Somerset CC are going bust, but Taunton, once a nice County town, is now awash with unnecessary metal.

    There are clearly very great strains on local authority budgets, but there are still a lot of low hanging fruit.

  34. @TonyBTG

    Fuxit – love it.

    Are we surprised that TM, an arch ditherer, is going for kicking the can down the road? Of course not.

    We are heading for an agreement to reach an agreement – classic TM – which will be heralded with fanfare as a breakthrough. The only certain part will be our payment.

    No-one will be happy, but no-one will be that unhappy. And we will all carry on as if nothing much has happened, because, in fact, nothing has happened.

    A bit like shaking hands on the first tee, and agreeing a halved match, because its hammering with rain and the bar is open. Afterwards described as ‘a jolly good, well fought game that no-one deserved to lose. Both of us played well and were level par.’

  35. Peter Cairns: I suppose that is true – I must admit my eyes tend to light up whenever I see the LVT mentioned, but revaluation ought to be a less controversial first step.

    The Tories are terrified of upsetting homeowners but the political reality is that homeowners are slowly dying out. If they want to remain competitive in the future, they will have to find a way to reshape the housing market to help more people onto the housing ladder. And if that means upsetting those who could afford to pay in a bit more, so be it – it’s not like those voters have anywhere else to go at the moment.

  36. Some might be interested in.the mathematical take on a multi-choice referendum (as in the YouGov poll).

    It is the Condorcet method (if you look up his life – he wasn’t particularly successful in applying his theory in politics, but it is a different question).

    The method is easy to follow.

    https://stevesmathsite.wordpress.com/instruction/the-condorcet-method/

  37. “Most councils have cut back their provisions of this towards the bare legal minimum since 2010 and of course the resulting demand has simply fallen on the NHS instead.”

    At massively increased cost to the taxpayer overall of course where that demand is met, as it so often is, by a clinically unnecessary hospital bed.

  38. @COLIN
    I can see a moral difference between playing politics with politics and playing politics with race. Although I think both those characterisations are oversimplification here.

  39. Laszlo

    Condorcet would be an interesting method – I believe the only one which would lead to a win for a “Chequers-style” outcome based on current polling, whereas most others would give Remain the win in a 3-way poll.

  40. @ Colin

    “Corbyn has conducted Labour Brexit Policy purely against the objective of bringing down the government & getting a GE”

    I wouldn’t disagree with this. The morality of this being a wrong thing to do though is debatable.

    For years Labour has been labelled (and been harmed in the polls) for being too pro EU and too pro immigration- often without much evidence to suggest that Labour policy on immigration or the EU has been significantly different from Tory policy.

    So were Labour to suddenly own Brexit (via a new GE) which was not something they campaigned for or wanted a referendum on, It would lay the blame for the final settlement at their door from very many voters who couldn’t see the necessity for a compromise or were not aware of how tough the choices were. In my humble opinion this is why Davis and Johnson jumped shipped so they could claim all along that “Brexit wasn’t done right”. In the scheme of things It doesn’t seem that unreasonable for Labour to have some “cake and eat it” policies they would not have to put to the test in negotiations and perhaps some of it could have been negotiated with Labour willingness to not make an issue of ECJ or free trade deals with ROW.

    I know many hard remainers want Corbyn to come out with a BINO or simply to stay in and want him to campaign on this “for the good of the country” and I can understand that argument but to my mind how unfair is it that Labour end up taking the blame for this? It’s not exactly morally right for a party that has not created the situation, being asked to fix it and then get blamed for fixing it as best they can. My suspicion is that Labour would be unelectable once the tabloids had had their way just as I suspect the Tories may become once this is all finished with.

    Incidentally- read your posts recently and I have to say that I don’t really understand why people on here are having much a problem with them especially where you are querying where the evidence is for what type of Brexit people want. We know immigration is either the top or second issue and “talking back control” is extremely vague but when given a choice between immigration and free trade the numbers are pretty close. Many remainers actually still do want immigration controls but don’t want to risk the economy and on the leave side there is a huge difference between Tory leave (free trade and deregulation) and Labour leave (which is protectionism in all but name and intervention). Nothing really gets you to consensus even with those who accept a need for compromise.

  41. @millie “There are clearly very great strains on local authority budgets, but there are still a lot of low hanging fruit.”

    The report was actually a dft effort, it is also on them to update the TSRGD accordingly (still in progress) before councils can be expected to deal with any problem.

    Regardless, I’m fairly unconvinced there is plenty of ‘low hanging fruit’ left. Things like are lovely to point at but the reality is the cost of a few bits of metal barely registers on the bottom lines of most councils.

  42. So we’ve now got ‘Fuxit’ and ‘Brexcrement’.

    Signs that the public are getting fed up.

  43. @ JAMESB – apologies, assumed the qualifier was obvious but by “voters” I mean “potential voters” for the relevant party. It isn’t about winning every vote in every seat – it’s about ensuring your “core voter” and “marginal voter” tip the balance in enough marginal seats. As the YG write-up pointed out CON are in trouble post-Brexit.
    As you pointed out only 11% of people approve of Chequers – May gaining nothing from Remainers but losing Leavers (mostly to UKIP and some to DK, lower LTV).
    Having said that “Leave EU” was down at #6. CON-Leave have higher priorities. Brexit should be a means to an end but sadly May has no Brexit, let alone post-Brexit vision.

    @ OLDNAT – Lots of flaws in that YG poll, particularly the limited number of questions asked and the issue of whether if an existing party moved more towards one of the points would that change the voters view of that party (either for or against)

    IMHO the most interesting finding (and we’ve seen this in plenty of other polls) is that CON and Leave both put issues like more govt intervention in housing, more money for NHS, etc as a high priority. If we had a purer question such as:

    “Would you like a future UK govt to be more actively involved in areas of the economy where the market has failed or is not working well”

    I expect you’d get a net +ve from CON (although not as high as high as LAB).

    A lot of folks from across the political spectrum acknowledge that ne0-liberalism has faults (or has completely failed). The issue is what comes next?

    a/ May allowing “corporate – supranational” ne0-liberalism to run her govt (which will certainly see no recovery in CON VI with a return of UKIP resulting in a LAB min/maj govt at next GE)
    b/ CON “evolve” from ne0-liberalism and find a post ne0-liberalism (post Brexit) platform that maintains their “core” values but offers a positive vision for our future (which gives them a realistic chance of winning a majority at next GE).

    The “far left” have a model for post ne0-liberalism (which generally seems to be going back to the 1970s and taking the other fork in the road (Bennite in UK, Mitterand’s platform (not his eventual policies) in France, etc).) Spending part of my Summer reading some fascinating, albeit quite scary, books from “far left” folks plans for post ne0-liberalism.

    The “centre” (c-right or c-left, whichever is currently “in power”) across the democratic West are in trouble as voters have had enough with ne0-liberalism and want a change. In opposition you benefit from the “Anyone But” vote which is why many CON are urging the party to give voters a positive plan for UK post Brexit but more importantly (IMHO) post ne0-liberalism (obviously in my view Brexit should be the catalyst for this – sadly something May disagrees with)

  44. it’s always “sneering” when other people do it, but never “sneering” when you reduce people who think differently to an undifferentiated group of “typical remain supporters”.

  45. IMHO the EU would go for FUXIT, I’d go further an say EU are masters of fudge – some might even say they are FUXEU :-)

    Put yourselves in their position:
    – get UK to sign the WA to commit to paying the 39bn (which will then go up once we’re locked into perma-transition)
    – get past 29Mar’19 and put UK into transition with limited ability to take advantage of any of the opportunities of leaving
    – no Farage in EP, no UK vetoing the federalist project
    – then simply drag out the transition (perma-transition of CU+SM), with Teutonic countries still able to sell tariff free into UK but France, RoI, etc trying to grab “City” and other jobs from UK

    The issue however is May selling this to ERG. As several folks have pointed out Remain won’t support FUXIT and apart from Gove few Leave will support it so FUXIT won’t make it past the “meaningful vote” (assuming May’s blind hope continues and CON MPs that want her out is below 159 (big difference between 48 and 159 if she won’t “go quietly”))

    That adds in a final point to consider from EU side:
    – The political chaos and likely switch to a LAB min/maj govt serves as both a stark lesson to any other country thinking they might be better off leaving and aids in their ability to pull more city/other jobs from UK (whilst still being able to sell stuff tariff free back to us – until we can no longer afford it of course!)

    Macron, Barnier and the EU federalists must be laughing their heads off – we are doing all the work for them! FUXIT is FUXUK a rare example of most Remain and Leave agreeing on something!

  46. Quick add to above. After 29Mar’19 the EU would let us rejoin, but that would be via A49 and since we’d be “begging” it obviously would not be on the current terms (ie rebate, vetoes, etc).

    Yet another obvious reason why EU would be quite happy with FUXIT

  47. Joe James B: Typical sneering remain supporters on this thread, just like Tim Jones on the constituency threads.

    If you think that sneering is wrong, then why are you sneering?

  48. It’s good to see new blood on here.

    Joe James B’s contributions have been so refreshing. Deep inciteful comments that get right to the root of the issues with a comprehensive discussion of the rights and wrongs before coming to a well-reasoned conclusion.

    Keep it up old chap.

  49. Norbold,

    Droll as ever!

    Peter.

  50. @Norbold.

    I was flicking back through this thread recently and read about your recent sad news. I was very sorry to hear it.

    Keep on keeping on.

1 34 35 36 37