The weekend papers have the first two polls with fieldwork conducted after the New Year – BMG in the Independent and Survation for yesterday’s Mail. Voting intention in the two polls is:

Survation: CON 38%(-1), LAB 41%(+1), LDEM 10%(+2), UKIP 4%(nc)
BMG: CON 36%(-1), LAB 36%(-2), LDEM 12%(nc), UKIP 6%(+2)

Survation’s poll was conducted on Thursday and Friday, changes are from their big Channel4 poll at the end of October. BMG was conducted between Tuesday and Friday and changes are from last month. Neither poll shows any real significant movement. As you would probably expect, the bulk of both polls focused on the looming issue of Brexit.

On the Brexit deal itself BMG found that 29% of people think MPs should approve the deal (up 3 points from December), 37% think it should be rejected (down 6 points). Survation found 36% of people wanted MPs to approve the deal (up 5), 40% wanted it rejected (down 6). Both polls show some movement in favour of passing the deal, but still more opposition than support.

BMG asked whether people would support or oppose various alternative Brexit options. By 46% to 28% people would support a second referendum. By 45% to 39% people would support reversing Brexit and just remaining. Further negotiations were supported by 45% to 34%. A “Norway-style deal” was supported by 40% to 36%. Leaving without a deal was opposed by 45% to 35%.

Survation’s poll included questions on how people would vote in various referendum scenarios – in a deal vs no deal referendum, 41% would prefer the deal, 32% no deal. In a referendum between no deal Brexit and remain, people prefer remain by 46% to 41%. A deal vs referendum vote would be neck-and-neck: 40% deal, 40% remain.

Tabs for Survation are here, BMG aren’t up yet.


908 Responses to “Latest BMG and Survation voting intentions”

1 16 17 18 19
  1. Howard wallis

    “the peoples instruction to parliament was to leave the EU properly as ADW clearly points out above.”

    No. The instruction was to leave,

    I don’t remember the options

    Remain
    Leave properly

    Being on the ballot paper.

    Whatever “leave properly” means any way.

    The word properly can mean different things to different people in this context.

    To some it can mean mean in a way that we still get full access to the single market.

    To others it could mean leave completely, pay no divorce bill, become a third country.

  2. Looking at the exchange between oldnat and adw I think we have another case of excessive black and white.

    It is clearly true that any referendum where the options are the status quo or a change to be negotiated inherently means that one position is clear at the time by definition[1] and the other simply cannot be.

    If you are going to hold referendums on a principle that amounts to a choice between status quo and change at all, this is not a bug but a feature.

    It can neve be eliminated [2]. To take the view that as a result of this lop-sidedness of options the result is flawed, is to conclude it would always be flawed. So you can never from that point logically hold such an “in principle” referendum that chooses between status quo and change. (Or not, as was my point yesterday, without a subsequent “in practice” one between defined status quo and DEFINED change.)

    But it is also true on the flipside that both binary choices are consistent between a range of options. And to that extent this applies to both sides here.

    I like my “scale of 1-10” way of looking at the UK and EU where 1 is WTO leave, 5 is “Brino”, we are a reluctant 6 and 10 is a federal superstate.

    If we are now a 6, then the ref was a choice between staying a 6 in the immediate term [3] or going to some to be defined 1-5. To that extent one is ill-defined and one isn’t.

    But the respective supporters were supporters of 1-5 and supporters of 6-10. Similarly vague coalitions. Not all the then 48% favour position 6, any more than all the then 52% favoured position 1.

    This is why campaign points like Turkish membership got traction. Because it is supported within the (then) 48%. Not by them all, But by some. Including the Government of the day of course.

    And indeed it’s even true that 6 is not all that’s on the table without a negotiated treaty change. We could unilaterally drop various opt outs at any time. Again, many of the (then) 48% (myself included on some) would like to. Some would like to join Schengen and some the Euro, which would be consensual processes but not treaty renegotiations.

    It’s legitimate to say “define your vision of remain” too. Even if as OLDNAT says we know exactly what the only possible remain on March 30 looks like.

    [1] Although strictly speaking this wasn’t true of 2016 as the remain option also included some changes that were at least politically defined in principle but certainly yet to be formalised in law, including at least one that some legal experts said couldn’t be,

    [2] Mitigated as it was certainly with IndyRef, by the happenstance of having the change position represented by an official body that would have actually believed in the advocated change, and by the competence of that body, but never eliminated.

    [3] or, as per point 1, becoming a 6- perhaps

  3. Howard Wallis

    Thanks for the offer of taking on the role of Dictator.

    Maybe the Romans had the right idea, When things get tough – appoint someone with time limited absolute power to sort things out.

    Please remember though that it rarely ended well for Dictators who messed things up….

  4. CHARLES

    “Personally I would suggest that AW allows the debate to continue, encourages as much reference to polling in it as possible, and bans any use of the word democratic in this context.”

    I think that says it all in your last post Charles. It seems to me that in your heart you accept that it would be undemocratic to have a second referendum but just cannot bring yourself to acknowledge it.

    Danny

    “Logically, if parliament cannot reduce the choice to just one sort of Brexit, the only possible thing to do right now is halt brexit unill such time as it can agree on one sort of Brexit.”

    Faulty logic Danny, the referendum was quite clear the people instructed Parliament to leave the EU and that’s what we should do. It’s all so very simple, it staggers me that people just refuse to understand.

  5. Jonesinbangor,
    “I just wish to emphasise that I would be all for soft EFTA Brexit, but that I fundamentally oppose any remainer attempts to frustrate Brexit.”

    The trouble is no form of brexit is better than membership, on every level. if we did have a soft EFTA Brexit that would not satisfy what leave said Brexit meant. You would therefore be thwarting what the voters wanted, not granting it.

    Howard Wallis,
    ” the peoples instruction to parliament was to leave the EU properly ”

    There can be only one Brexit. Please define the terms you consider to be necessary to ‘leave properly’?

  6. in “when All Else fails” by Jason Brennan the author writes: “People have a right that certain types of high-stakes decisions be made by competent people, who make their decisions competently and in good faith. It is unjust, and violates a person’s rights, to forcibly deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property, or significantly harm her life prospects, as a result of decisions made by an incompetent decision-making body (p85).”

    That would seem to make many of the decisions about Brexit unjust, including the campaigning (which can be regarded as illegitimate on other grounds).

    So too might the austerity programme be unjust and therefore illegitimate given that it is not meetings its ends and has severely detrimental effects on the well-being of a great many people.

    The same might also be said of all UK governments starting with Thatcher. An increase in health inequalities started with Thatcher and remains today. Many thousands die prematurely unnecessarily. Others suffer disability much of which is preventable.

    The DUP’s decision to support Brexit was made, it seems with no thought that Brexit would succeed. So that would appear to be a decision that lacked competence and would fit Brennan’s philosophy that it is an unjust decision.

    The DUP could change its mind. The red line it has is to be treated like the UK which suggests it could accept a soft Brexit , a hard Brexit – or no Brexit.

    So, is Brennan right?

  7. Howard Wallis,
    “Faulty logic Danny, the referendum was quite clear the people instructed Parliament to leave the EU and that’s what we should do.”

    Ok..so if we negotiate a deal where we stay in the whole of the EU market system, follow all the rules, but give up membership so we no longer sit on the council or parliament or court, then you agree that because we had left, then the referendum would have been satisfied?

    You do seem to be saying that, you know?

  8. @ Danny

    “The trouble is no form of brexit is better than membership, on every level. if we did have a soft EFTA Brexit that would not satisfy what leave said Brexit meant. You would therefore be thwarting what the voters wanted, not granting it.”

    I don’t agree with you, and we’ve argued this point previously. You are simply playing devil’s advocate, double bluff democracy so that you can justify your unsustainable desired outcome = full remain!

    Given that what the UK & EU have agreed so far is a withdrawal agreement, the “future arrangements” are the next decision for the UK.

    I advocate that we join EFTA as it actually will solve so many of the issues like securing EU citizens rights, fisheries, agriculture etc. It does actually allow us to enter into trade arrangements with third countries.

    Stating that no arrangements will be better than membership is so defeatist – we haven’t even left yet and is purely hypothetical conjecture. I do sense leaving with “no deal” would be economically damaging, but even in that scenario we would end up having to agree some form of formal arrangements with the EU via treaty.

  9. Howard Wallis

    What seems to me extraordinary is that you do not acknowledge that there are points to be made on both sides. As I understand it, Parliament can do what it wants and if it wants to have a second referendum it can have one and that would be democratic. It does not follow that Parliament should do that and there are points to be made on both sides. I think that on balance it should. You think that on balance it shouldn’t. There is a debate to be had but as far as I know we are both democrats (with a small D).

  10. I would appear here that the chances of a second referendum are limited, the Tories will not go for it in large numbers and a private poll, reported in the Guardian here

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-with-stop-brexit-policy-poll-suggests

    makes it likely that Labour will try all other options first

  11. @ Danny

    “You got me thinking. I see that the result of the EU referendum was 17,378,581 votes to remain from total registered voters of 40,086,677. 67% for remain.”

    This takes fantastical remainer thinking to a whole new level! The “silent remainer majority” who assumed it was a done deal?

    No! If you don’t vote, your vote is wasted. End of.

  12. I would appear here that the chances of a second referendum are limited, the Tories will not go for it in large numbers and a private poll, reported in the Guardian here

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-with-stop-brexit-policy-poll-suggests

    makes it likely that Labour will try all other options first

  13. @alister 1948

    “1. Leave with no deal. About 40% probabilty. As the rules have been set up, if no one does anything then this is what will happen.”

    While it is true that no deal is what will happen if nothing else does, it is not true to say that “all the rules have been set up”.

    For example, there are currently no “rules” on what tariffs would be in place on March 30. They would need to be agreed by the House of Commons and that requires the Trade Bill to be enacted and tariff proposals to be put to and agreed by the HoC. Without that there will be no basis in law for HMRC to colle t tariffs of any sort on goods coming from anywhere. There will also be no mechanism in place to replace EU measures to prevent dumping of, for example, cheap Chinese steel as that is intended to be handled by a new Trade Remedies Authority but thst has not been established yet.

    This position will be replicated across a vast range of activity.

    Good luck to no dealers in having all that sorted out by March 29,

  14. why twice I don’t know and even less sure why JIB’s post would appear in between!!!!

  15. @ WB61

    I’ve said this all along, and Jeremy Corbyn fully understands this.

    The moment he declares for any remain options (rescind article 50, second referendum) he falls in the Tory trap and they will immediately move for a General Election.

    JC wants a General Election – but don’t expect anything but a nebulous position on Brexit as demonstrated by Diane Abbot on QT earlier this week.

  16. WB61

    Has there ever been doubt that Labour would try all other options first.

    Whatever OPs say or suggest in answer to what if questions too many Labour MPs in leave seats (mainly a few are anti-EU in principle of course) are opposed/reluctant to vote for a second ref.

    The opposed will never come on board by definition but getting most of the reluctant on board, which they are not at present, can not happen until all other options have been exhausted.

  17. @alister1948

    Apologies the Trade Remedies Authority requires the Trade Bill. The tariffs require HoC approval by SI ( along with the 400 plus other SIs and half a dozen major pieces of primary legislation which need to be approved by Parliament even if a deal is agrred).

  18. @Howard Wallis

    How is it undemocratic to have a democratic vote supersede a previous democratic vote?

    Isn’t this how GE’s work?

  19. Danny

    May’s red lines are a good indication of what leaving the EU means, anything less is a traversty of what we voted for in 2016.

  20. @ Danny

    I said we were too dependent on Kent ports for commercial and passenger transport to Europe NOT that we should stop using them. It’s obviously a pressure point that needs help. We need more capacity, particularly commercial, at other ports further up the North Sea.

    When we leave we will probably stop using Rotterdam as a hub, apparently approx 3% of all our exports heading outside of the EU go through there currently. That will add to a the need for a solution. Does anyone know if this is calculated as EU exports from the UK rather than non EC as it goes to an EU country first before being shipped on to final destination. I would assume not.

  21. Did Howard Wallis and The Other Howard share an English teacher? Their writing styles seem remarkably similar.

  22. CMJ
    “democracy” is a very moveable feast for Leavers and many other politicians.
    1) trade unions have to get >50% turnout for strike action and renew their mandate every 6 months but London Mayors and MPs at by-elections have no such problems
    2) mayoral referendums in Northern cities can be safely ignored, but one vote in June 2016 is immutable
    3) Theresa can call another General Election whenever she wants and govern with much less than 50% support from those who vote, but voters are not allowed to have any opportunity to change their minds on Europe
    4) Theresa can invent red lines to suit TOH despite the fact they were not on the referendum ballot, prominent Leavers like Dan Hannan campaigned for a Norway style Brexit, and it is clear that no single version of Brexit has the endorsement of more than 50% of all those who voted in 2016 (let alone those you have reached voting age since then)

    Democracy has become a corrupted word. Parliament should check whether voters still want to Leave, given that it is far from certain that they do. But they will not do so because self-interest trumps common sense every time.

  23. Jim Jam

    I don’t disagree: I think the problem is all other options are being exhausted quickly by the government, and my main point was that getting sufficient numbers of Tories is an essential but unlikely element, in particular more unlikely if it becomes official Labour policy. We must not forget despite everything, Labour cannot be held responsible for ensuring a 2nd referendum as, although the second largest party, it is still more than 60 seats behind the Tories. The Logjam requires the Tories to split and possibly for Labour to split also. I have never been more pessimistic about the UK’s future.

    For the future I can imagine that talk of a Celtic Federal Republic (which up to now has been a quiet idea) within the EU could now begin to develop more seriously I only hope that Wales can be involved if it does.

  24. @ Andrew111

    “Parliament should check whether voters still want to Leave, given that it is far from certain that they do.”

    Given the rumours are increasing of an imminent GE, we may soon get the chance.

    And we can all vote for a representative of a political party that best aligns with our view of the preferred outcome on Brexit!

  25. EOTW

    11.25 am

    Their opinions likewise!

  26. It seems to me that the support for, or opposition to, a second referendum is based on an identical supposition. That supposition is that Remain would win. Those who think that the original decision to leave the EU taken two and a half years ago was potentially disastrous, and believe subsequent events and revelations prove this to be so, want a referendum because they now believe Remain would prevail. Those who still cling to Brexit as some sort of irrevocable article of faith and that 2016 somehow enshrined a tablet of stone, oppose a referendum because they too think Remain will win. Forget the Faragesque bluster about Leave winning by a larger margin, they’re pretty sure they’d lose. Why else would they fear it if they really believed that leaving the EU was the settled will of the people. History and the past is their friend. They pulled it off all those years ago and can’t stomach a re-match

    It was in fact the settled will of 37% of the electorate established 30 months ago when the arguments were prosecuted amidst a toxic cocktail of mendacity, fantasy and ignorance. An ageing and ambivalent will fogged in confusion.

    It’s clearly time to ask the 2019 electorate what they think we should now do in the light of what we now know. Peter Kellner has done some work (are you going to share it, Anthony?) that shows that the demographic changes that have taken place in the UK electorate since 2016 may well have radically changed in terms of the Remain/Leave balance as older voters have passed away and young people have become eligible to vote and joined the electoral roll.

    This won’t happen for all sorts of reasons, but I’d set up the second referendum fundamentally different to the first. Pass legislation to make it compulsory to vote, establish a 60% threshold for Remain (not Leave) to win and make the two questions either Stay in the EU or leave with No Deal.

  27. WB – I am not sure about split a few members and/or MPs peeling away may occur I agree and voting coalitions will be impacted for a GE or 2 with the net affect being uncertain and unpredictable.

    I know this is a polling site but I tend to focus on MPs as I am highly sceptical of the veracity of what-if polls, or more accurately the usefulness as I am sure they are truthful is answering the questions asked. In part because how the parties will develop other policies that may attract or deter some voters is not factored in and can’t be. Also, the’ I wont vote party x again while…’ is a common refrain between elections which gets overtaken at GE times.

    As thins stand not enough Tory MPs will back a second ref to counter the Labour MPs who would break a 3-line whip, in fact probably more of the latter than the former.

    NB) The HOC majority on a free vote for a softer PD based around A CU is under threat as remain MPs who would have supported are starting to eye up a bigger prize of remain for ref 2.

  28. The interpretation of this “leaked poll” sounds highly dubious. The more likely/less likely responses seem to have been aggregated across all voters, including many UKIP and Tories who would never vote Labour and who will (probably) nearly all say “less likely”.

    What matters is the impact on actual and potential Labour voters, and from the reports it sounds like there would be a clear benefit in attracting LD and Greens, and only limited loss of actual Labour voters. And when it comes to it I suspect the “less likely” will still hold their noses.

    The thing of most importance is the overall effect on VI. The report in the Guardian says:

    9% of Con would switch to Lab
    11% of Lab would be less likely to vote Lab
    39%/40% of LD/Green would be more likely to vote Lab

    Setting aside for the moment whether the responses are a reflection of actual likely behaviour, it’s difficult to see how these numbers in any way suggest a loss of Labour support. The Lab/Con churn represents less than a 1% swing, and that would be more than offset by the gain from other parties.

  29. @ CROSSBAT11

    “It was in fact the settled will of 37% of the electorate established 30 months ago when the arguments were prosecuted amidst a toxic cocktail of mendacity, fantasy and ignorance.”

    And there we have Remainer arrogance laid out for all to see.

    Another referendum? Absolutely not, it simply would let the incompetent and duplicitous MPs off the hook.

  30. There’s a fantastic documentary on Hugo Chavez on iplayer at the moment. Very instructive on what can happen when a populist mandate / left wing government (delete according to political leaning) runs out of control.

  31. Given the rumours are increasing of an imminent GE, we may soon get the chance.

    And we can all vote for a representative of a political party that best aligns with our view of the preferred outcome on Brexit!

    I think a GE does nothing to fix Brexit.

    Firstly, I think a hung Parliament is very likely, therefore Parliament will be as equally incapable of delivering an outcome as this one.

    Secondly, people don’t vote in a GE for Brexit. People who want the nationalise utilities etc, and a redistribution of wealth, yet wants to leave the EU may well still vote Labour, so their voting preference does not reflect their Brexit preference. Equally, Conservative voters who are strongly pro EU are unlikely to vote for Corbyn.

    Thirdly, if your MP is Ken Clarke, he disagrees with the Tory leadership, as is the case if your MP is Chuka Umunna, who disagrees with Corbyn.

    Voter’s Brexit preference needs to be an isolated vote, therefore a referendum is the best way of resolving it.

  32. Are the last 2017 election results still available on this site? – have not been here for quite a time. Thanks

  33. Peter W

    “It’s legitimate to say “define your vision of remain” too.”

    In terms of a philosophical discussion, I agree.

    However, in terms of the current political crisis, to suggest that there is an equivalence between the variety of Leave options, and the single process of achieving Remain, is a false proposition.

    “False equivalence” is a logical fallacy oft used in politics.

  34. There is no way of resolving this! Someone drew an analogy with the first world war, nobody wanted it but it still happened because the appropriate steps weren’t taken. In eight weeks we will, unless the law is changed no longer be members of the EU, it will be a disaster.
    Perhaps as the UK, like a small child we must take our lumps before we realise the mistake we have made. I have no doubt we will then go running to Mummy (in this case the EU) and say we are sorry and you were right all along we shouldn’t have left. I don’t think I have ever been so depressed about the state of the nation, and I look around me at the poverty locally and think “may the Lord have mercy on us all”!

  35. WB61

    “I have no doubt we will then go running to Mummy (in this case the EU) and say we are sorry”

    Of course, Mummy has already pointed out that she can save us from ourselves [1], though the UK might have to behave as the child in your analogy, and not the truculent adolescent.

    [1] via offering us extra time to come to our senses via an extension to the A50 process.

  36. @ Old Nat

    “1] via offering us extra time to come to our senses via an extension to the A50 process.”

    Is it penalties after ET as we would probably need them?

  37. @Robin – “The interpretation of this “leaked poll” sounds highly dubious.”

    That was my reading also. On top of your very valid observations is the failure to consider the flipside question, which would be how Labour support would be affected if they went into a GE backing Brexit.

    @Howard Wallis – “I have a very clear view of what is needed to take us out and honour the result of the referendum properly.”

    Herein l!es the critical problem we face. Lots of people have clear ideas about what is needed etc, and they are all different.

    The problem is the interpretation of what the referendum result means. A good example of this is the development of Brexiter thinking over the period since the vote.

    Initially, the central objective was the need to control and reduce immigration. Now this is barely mentioned. Indeed, reassurance is being constantly given to business that immigration will continue at whatever level business needs, rather than reduced. Witness Boris’ l!es on Turkish migration yesterday.

    In June 2016, membership of a/the Customs Union was barely mentioned. The Joint Report of December 2017, which was agreed by David Davis, Boris, Fox etc, included membership of the customs union as a potentially permanent backstop, which became agreed government policy.

    Now, membership of any CU is being presented as fundamentally breaking the meaning of the referendum result, which is a clear reinterpretation of the vote and adding a new definition in hindsight to the result.

    I think we all need to accept that there were myriad reasons why people voted the way they did in 2016, and many of these, on both sides, are bound to have changed since 2016 in light of experience. It is not credible for anyone to claim knowledge of what the referendum vote meant in terms of detailed red lines. What is needed is to find a solution, which may well be leaving the EU in some way or other, which commands the respect of the maximum number of today’s voters.

    This cannot be done by making unsupportable statements regarding individual’s interpretations of a vote in 2016, and can only be done via some form of deliberative process in 2019, where the options that have since then become apparent are explored, debated, and eventually one is selected.

    A new referendum might be part of this process, but might equally be as ineffective as the first one in defining what voters actually want, if the process of formulating the referendum is flawed.

    To do this, all sides need to untether themselves from the 2016 result and understand that the circumstances have moved on, and a new, more open minded approach is needed.

  38. After John Major’s latest Brexit comments, this from a Conservative MP:

    “Mrs Braverman said some of the options being put forward – including a customs union, allowing continued free movement of people or holding another referendum – would be “clear breaches” of promises made by Mrs May, and ignore the will of the people.

    She has also called for the Irish border backstop – the position of last resort, to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland – to be scrapped.”

    If this is the attitude of Parliamentarians to compromising, clearly there will no compromise. Keeping all your previously held red lines makes compromise impossible.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46931114

  39. @Robin

    Setting aside for the moment whether the responses are a reflection of actual likely behaviour, it’s difficult to see how these numbers in any way suggest a loss of Labour support. The Lab/Con churn represents less than a 1% swing, and that would be more than offset by the gain from other parties.

    I agree, subject to the caveat that it makes a difference where those votes are.

  40. Jim Jam,
    ” The HOC majority on a free vote for a softer PD based around A CU is under threat as remain MPs who would have supported are starting to eye up a bigger prize of remain for ref 2.”

    The PD is quite meaningless and will be ignored entirely if it suits the negotiators at the time, whoever they might be. It isnt any kind of prize worth having.

  41. Bantams

    If we’re using football analogies, then –

    it’s surprising that the managers of most “teams” haven’t been sacked.

    or

    The referee (Bercow) should start showing red cards to those indulging in dirty play.

  42. An informative thread on why lorry traffic is likely to be severely disrupted even if only 1% of lorries are actually physically inspected ( spolier alert : it’s the additional documentation which has to be checked)

    https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1086591505874239488?s=19

  43. Danny – that is your view of the PD and of course it is true that it only provided a list, in effect, of stated preferences and a focus for the negotiators but the politics is rather different.

    My focus, as I have posted above, is on the HOC numbers and my view, any many others, is that there is a HOC majority on a free vote for some version of a customs union being in the PD as a preferred outcome which would disappoint Canada+ peeps such as Fox and Leadsome (Cant work Gove out).

    When Umunna says I have voted for a CU and for an EEA but that was then he is clearly now focused on a second ref.
    How many more Labour MPs would defy the whip to support a cross-party deal is not clear; not enough at present but it could grow, especially if the SNP joining Unumma etc and the LDs is holding out for a second ref.

    In any event the PMs apparent unwillingness to move to a firmer CU position makes this irrelevant as we are heading for a crude calculation. Will enough Tory MPs back a second ref to compensate and more for Labour rebels when the times comes? At the moment not by a good distance but within a month or so, based on current time-table, the numbers will be tighter but I would expect a close result either way.

    May – coming back with her deal v remain would of course change things but I doubt she will even if she has U turned several times.

  44. @ Old Nat

    Agree about managers, if they’d been in industry you wouldn’t have seen their @rses for dust.

    On the referee there’s an argument this particular one would have been done for match fixing :)

  45. Mrs Braverman said some of the options being put forward – including a customs union, allowing continued free movement of people or holding another referendum – would be “clear breaches” of promises made by Mrs May, and ignore the will of the people.

    Well, she’s right about the first part. It would “breach” May’s promises.

    But I feel like I’m watching a train crash in very slow motion when I read the second part: “.. and it would ignore the will of the people”.

    I recall the question being “IN or OUT” of the EU. I don’t recall voting on specifics such as customs union, free movement etc..

    How does Braverman know what the will of the people is in respect of those issues??? Where did she buy her crystal ball?? I want one. For next weeks lottery.

  46. Jonesinbangor,
    “Another referendum? Absolutely not, it simply would let the incompetent and duplicitous MPs off the hook.”

    So you agree with polling that there is now a remain majority?

    If so, how can anyone who in any way believes in democracy want to push through something opposed by the nation?

    Bobinnorfolk,
    “Are the last 2017 election results still available on this site”
    Try wikipedia. Thats where I got the 1975 referendum results which jonesinbangor failed to recognise when I replied to him about the first referendum.

    Alec,
    “Now, membership of any CU is being presented as fundamentally breaking the meaning of the referendum result,”

    Thats odd. Isnt it implicit in WA we will join it?

  47. @ 11.25 am

    Things must have got serious for the far Right when Howard comes out from his disguise and tries posting with a second name.

    Although it could be different family members in the same Epsom address.

  48. “CHARLES
    Howard Wallis

    What seems to me extraordinary is that you do not acknowledge that there are points to be made on both sides. As I understand it, Parliament can do what it wants and if it wants to have a second referendum it can have one and that would be democratic. It does not follow that Parliament should do that and there are points to be made on both sides.

    I think that on balance it should. You think that on balance it shouldn’t.”

    I don’t think there is any “balancing” going on with Mr Wallis.

  49. I think I said this before, but anyway. I find the discussion of whether a second referendum is democratic completely pointless. The first referendum didn’t take place because it was the right and proper democratic thing to do*. It took place because Cameron and the Tory party thought it was politically expedient thing to do. Though many in the party obviously wanted it, many others weren’t really interested in what the people had to say, and probably weren’t particularly pleased with the result. It was done purely as a ploy to win an election and destroy UKIP, it was not done for the sake of some pure ideal of democracy.

    And so my conclusion is that it doesn’t matter a hoot if a second referendum is democratic or not. It will take place if, and only if, it is politically expedient to do so. Actually these seems more likely to me now than it has been for a while, but still one of the less likely paths I feel.

    * Though it could well have been, but that’s not the REASON it took place.

  50. JimJam,
    “My focus, as I have posted above, is on the HOC numbers and my view, any many others, is that there is a HOC majority on a free vote for some version of a customs union being in the PD as a preferred outcome which would disappoint Canada+ peeps such as Fox and Leadsome (Cant work Gove out).”

    The problem with the backstop is that it is in the WA and is legally binding. DUP refuse to accept the PD saying the parties will seek an alternative agreement, because that is totally meaningless. I have argued before the PD can perfectly be interpreted as the Uk staying in every single element of the EU market..or as aiming to be in none. What will happen will depend on government and parliament at the time of negotiations.

    The WA already guarantees the UK will stay in the CU, whatever May says to the contrary. Its a battle already won, and one May was perfectly happy to lose.

    If any MP is swayed by inserting or removing anything from the PD he is a total and utter fool.

1 16 17 18 19