There are two new voting intention polls in the Sunday papers, tackling the issue of measuring TIG support in different ways…

Deltapoll for the Mail on Sunday have standard voting intentions of CON 43%, LAB 36%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 5%. Respondents were then asked how they would vote if The Independent Group put up candidates at the next election – voting intention under those circumstances switches to CON 39% (four points lower), LAB 31%(five points lower), TIF 11%, LDEM 5%(one point lower). The implication is that the Independent Group are taking some support from both Labour and Conservative though, as we saw with the YouGov poll earlier in the week, it’s not necessarily as simple as a direct transfer – part of the difference may well be people saying don’t know. Fieldwork was between Thurs and Saturday, full results are here.

Opinium for the Observer meanwhile only asked their standard voting intention question, but have begun including TIG in that. This flags up an interesting dilemma for polling companies. The Independent Group are obviously not a political party. While the widespread expectation is that at some point in the future they will become a political party, they aren’t registered as one yet, and aren’t putting up candidates yet. This means that most polling companies are asking hypothetical questions about the level of support they would get if they did stand, but are not currently including them in standard voting questions.

Opinium however are offering them as a current option – presumably their thinking is that it’s only a matter of time before they register and if poll respondents’ intention is already to vote for them when they do, they should register it. The approach Opinium has taken will clearly be the correct way to do it once the TIG do evolve into a political party, the question is whether it’s too early to do it now. Either way, for what it’s worth Opinium’s first polling figures with TIG included as an option are CON 40%(+3), LAB 32%(-5), LDEM 5%(-3), TIG 6%(+6), UKIP 7%(nc). Fieldwork was Wednesday to Friday, and changes are from a week ago. Full results are here.

To be complete, as well as the SkyData and Survation polls I’ve already written about here, which showed TIG support at 10% and 8% respectively, there was also a YouGov poll midweek. That found standard topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 33%, LDEM 10% and hypothetical figures of CON 38%, LAB 26%, LDEM 7%, TIG 14% (full write up is here. Overall that means, depending on the different questions asked and approaches taken, the initial level of support for the TIG seems to be between 6% and 14%.

1,929 Responses to “Latest voting intention polls & measuring potential TIG support”

1 2 3 4 5 39
  1. Wales Opinion poll Via Britian Elects.
    Welsh Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 35% (-7)
    CON: 29% (-4)
    PC: 14% (+4)
    LDEM: 8% (+1)
    UKIP: 6% (+2)

    Swing to Plaid

  2. Can we on UKPR ban the words L!e and L!ar as they do in Parliament, perhaps we can write “terminological inexactitude” at least then you would have to take the time to write it and not treat it as a throwaway!

  3. @ TW

    “Stating NI and Scotland voted to Remain in the EU is a l!e ”

    That post was fortunately short enough for me to read and remind myself why I shouldn’t get tempted into reading your posts again.

  4. @ ALEC – I will happy agree we need to spend some (not shed loads) of taxpayers money to mitigate the risks AND capture the upside to UK agri-food business from a WTO Brexit – that is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along, we need to end the failing ne0liberal EU-centric model and a “Clean Brexit” means we COULD do that.

    A lot of the money we’ll need, possibly all of it (especially after an initial “boost”)[1], can come from charging tariffs on EU goods but if we look for empirical evidence then the “cost” of saving (and growing) our agri-food sector will be tiny in comparison to bailing out the banks (or foot+mouth).

    So we have hard evidence of HMG “rescuing” businesses, industries and sectors before (even within EU “rules”), yet you continue to believe, with certainty, that we won’t “rescue” them in the future (within the more relaxed WTO rules)

    I fully accept businesses, industries and sectors will lobby for “shed loads” of cash and I’m not suggesting an open cheque book (or nationalisation) – there is a massive difference between doing absolutely nothing and

    [1] The Remain press are pushing some dodgy research stating UK consumers will pay 9bn more for food via tariffs. That number is based on faulty assumptions but I haven’t the time or interest to bust every Remain myth. However, clearly tariff payments will become HMG income (free of the huge % we currently give to EU)

    The Civitas numbers are much lower (3bn-ish) but also based on some faulty assumptions. I’ll repost their numbers as they give a breakdown and they also show the “other side” which in this case is UK exporters facing a 1bn-ish hit on agri-food (ie we’d net gain 2bn using their numbers which COULD be recycled into direct assistance for UK agri-food sector)

  5. @WB61 – IMHO Blackford was correct in calling May a l!ar, in that regard the question is why is Corbyn not calling her out?

    Corbyn seems quite content to let May kick the can, something maybe more LAB MPs and VI should take note of!

  6. Shamelessly cut from the Guardian Live feed:

    Like most business organisations, the Association of British Insurers has repeatedly spoken out in public about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit. But in a speech this evening its director general, Huw Evans, will go further than before, saying no deal would be “an unforgivable act of economic and social self-harm”. According to an extract released in advance, he will tell the ABI annual dinner:

    A no-deal outcome would be an unforgivable act of economic and social self-harm. It would mean leaving the world’s single biggest trading block overnight with nothing but WTO rules to replace it.

    This would be wholly inadequate and unprecedented. None of the EU’s 20 largest trading partners trade with the EU on solely WTO terms; they all have deeper agreements in place. And the WTO framework itself is designed to provide a mechanism for states to resolve trade disputes – it is not designed to be a safety net for the world’s fifth largest economy leaving the world’s biggest trading block. Nor do its rules guarantee market access for the services which make up four fifths of the UK economy. This matters because the EU is – by a very long distance – the largest export market for the UK insurance and long-term savings industry.

    As an industry we have done everything possible to prepare for no deal, including transferring an estimated 29m insurance contracts and the establishment of nearly 40 EU subsidiaries and branches to minimise disruption to customers. But we still believe very strongly that a conscious decision to opt for no deal would be an act of economic recklessness our great country would live to regret with WTO rules offering little to no protection against the consequences. As a last resort, if the only alternative to no deal is some form of short delay to Brexit, then delay we should.

    Remind me again, why are we doing this?

  7. FWIW “Leave”[1] won 80% of the vote (or 76% if you include all those able to vote)

    That is a stonking[2] majority

    [1] Terminologically inexact, see the link for the full details ;)
    [2] stonking – used to emphasize something impressive, exciting, or very large (or IMHO all of those terms!) :)

  8. @trevors – “So by refusing to accept the last ref,…”

    This is where you keep going wrong.

    No one is refusing to accept the result of the last referendum. What some people are arguing about is what the result of the next referendum would be.

    Can you appreciate the difference, and the significance of this?

  9. From the current DTel webpage:

    “”Theresa May and Angela Merkel discussed delaying Brexit during their bilateral meeting in Egypt.

    The German Chancellor is understood to have asked Mrs May if she is considering extending Article 50 by at least two months, as The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday.

    The two leaders met over a breakfast during the EU-Arab League summit in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.

    It comes just hours after Tobias Ellwood, the defence minister,…””

    So what will happen to the celebrations planned for Friday March 29th. Can I watch my usual rugby that night, courtesy of Sky Arena?

  10. Lets all be clear what the Trevors are saying.

    If you decide to launch a Rocket and during the countdown data shows there might be a leak in the fuel system…..

    Don’t stop the countdown or abort the launch, because that means giving in to those at mission control who thought the mission should be scrubbed because the rocket was unsafe.


  11. @ MATT126 – on those Welsh numbers CON would take 4 seats from LAB and get pretty close on a further 5.

    PC would only take Ynys Mon from LAB and vote stack in seats they already have.

    Hopefully once tabs are up we’ll see if they asked a second set of VI including TIG

  12. It’s very interesting to see John Lansman this morning talk about the scale and depth of antisemitism in Labour. He doesn’t mince his words:

    “I do think we have a major problem and it always seems to me that we underestimate the scale of it. I think it is a widespread problem. I think it is now obvious that we have a much larger number of people with hardcore antisemitic opinions which unfortunately is polluting the atmosphere in a lot of constituency parties and in particular online. We have to deal with these people.”

    This makes it much harder for Labour people to dismiss the allegations as part of a plot to gain political advantage.

    I’ve experience too many anti-racist left wingers slipping into antisemitic tropes when it comes to discussing Israel and the Middle East. Most of them when challenged accept the fine distinctions and kind of apologise, (in my experience of this) but quite often there is a ‘but….’ at the end of the sentence.

    It’s a funny thing, because I would accept what one writer said of Corbyn and Labour last week, to the effect that no one could seriously doubt that if the blackshirts hit the streets of Britain to round up the Jews, the Labour left would be the first on the streets to protect them. Yet still Labour has this unpleasant undercurrent that they struggle to deal with.

    My view on this, which could easily be wrong, is that the root cause is the concept of ideological and ethical purity that pervades parts of the left. Shades of opinion are not permitted. You’re either a socialist, for the working people, or a capitalist oppressor. The world is neatly divided into categories, and you must be on the right side (the left side, in fact) of the line.

    This translates as ‘if you are Labour, you are moral and good and cannot be racist’, and then develops into the idea that those criticising antisemitism within Labour cannot therefore be honest, but must be seeking political advantage, lackeys of the international Jewish conspiracy, funded by Israel or whatever.

    All parties have elements of this (‘true Brexit’ believers, for example) but in Labour’s case the affinity with Palestinian rights leads many to slip into antisemitism, even if some don’t fully understand the language and meaning of some of what they say.

  13. @Trevors – “FWIW “Leave”[1] won 80% of the vote (or 76% if you include all those able to vote)”

    And again, you are completely wrong here.

    This has been definitively defined in legal terms, and the vote that you cite _was not_ about deciding to leave the EU. It was merely granting the PM authority to inform the EU of the UK’s intention to leave.

    In international terms, this has a completely different meaning, as was found by the ECJ.

    Parliament has yet to decide whether it actually wants to leave the EU.

  14. @Trevor

    “Stating NI and Scotland voted to Remain in the EU is a…”

    Please. Just stop. If you’re arguing that an advisory ref is more than advisory, then someone else can argue their part of an imagined[1] union voted along different lines to your wishes, especially given that some have argued such for as much as 40 years.

    (oh, and that word is blocked for a reason. It tends to get debates too heated.)

    [1] It is imaginary, given that one half always out-votes the other. Not to mention, the parliament made-up largely by one half, consistently votes to keep the other half from having additional responsibility / powers over its own affairs, because the larger half mismanages things.

    Back to quick-scrolling past your posts.

  15. ALEC, TW, TRIGGUY et al

    The result of the referendum itself is the distant past, events have moved on an awful lot since then. People have frequently pointed out that the referendum was only advisory, as it can only have been because we have a representative democracy, not a direct one. It’s up to parliament to decide how and whether to enact whatever was decided in a referendum. There have been a few occasions where they’ve overriden referenda on matters like elected mayors, but I can’t think of a nationwide example.

    We might well also note that the 2017 election returned a parliament where about 90% of the members camapigned on manifestoes which explicitly argued in favour of leaving the EU. Of course parties frequently break manifesto promises, but they also frequently pass laws which aren’t supported by a majority of the public. Indeed, a government will often shed substantial support and be behind in the polls, even if it won a comfortable majority in the last election. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t allowed to use that majority to pass their legislative agenda onto the statute books. Whether polling shows support for a law is something of an irrelevance, useful only in showing politicians whether their course of action might help or hinder their chances at the next election; if the government wishes to pursue Brexit, and can muster the votes to get it through parliament (that part is looking like a pretty big ‘if’ at the moment) then it is entirely democratically legitimate for it to do so, regardless of whether polling shows the public cooling on the idea.

  16. @ ALEC – “What some people are arguing about is what the result of the next referendum would be.”

    I appreciate the difference between a hypothetical scenario and an actual one – thank you for picking a great example of that!

    Your turn – will you accept that CON and LAB will desperately want to avoid a new ref?

    @ EOTW – wow, how “factually incorrect” is that rant from Huw Evans.

    1/ EU is not the “world’s single biggest trading block” , even with UK still in it the US is bigger

    2/ “overnight with nothing but WTO rules to replace it” completely ignores the “No Deal” measures already on stand-by, but I’ll admit some of those are time limited

    3/ “deeper agreements in place”, completely ignores the areas outside of EC remit, especially in services where EU itself is not “fully liberalised” and also ignores the “roll-overs” completed or partially completed.

    4/ “Nor do its (WTO) rules guarantee market access for the services” – except of course that they do, but I’ll admit the scope of access is more limited.

    In case you need reminding why we are doing this (ie leaving the EU) then:

    1/ CON made an election promise to hold a ref (after the 2013-14 EU ref bill was blocked)

    2/ Cameron won a majority in a PeoplesVote (2015GE)

    3/ MPs then voted on a new EU ref bill which past and hence became EU Ref Act 2015

    4/ Leave won the referendum PeoplesVote (2016)

    5/ MPs then endorsed it (2017)

    6/ We also had a GE (PeoplesVote2) where voters picked parties that “respected” the referendum (2017 again)

    That’s a brief summary of quite a lengthy democratic process!

  17. @ PETER – I’m OK if the “launch” is delayed for some final safety checks, we could certainly do with a bit more time to get all the seat belts in, airbags ready, more fuel onboard, etc. Plotting a course for “Project After” would be nice but let’s not speculate on unknown future events!

    I can’t claim to have been waiting 40years but certainly since Maastricht (and EU didn’t exist before that anyway) – what’s a few more months?

  18. Alec you’ve hit the nail on the head there I think. It manifests itself with other “awkward” populations too, not just Jews in Palestine especially if you can write them off as a product of neo-colonialism. There’s nothing some on the British left wouldn’t tacitly approve of then, up to and including ethnic cleansing or worse.

    As someone on the left and off and on actively so for all my adult life I’ve certainly felt this not just on Israel but also, closer to home personally, on Ireland, on South Africa and elsewhere.

    They don’t mean too. It’s the ideological purity thing. If their position on the middle East, or Ireland, or South Africa is right and not open to nuance, then the obstacle to their position, being the awkward population on the ground, becomes a problem to be got rid off not a subtlety of the world’s lack of simplicity to be accommodated.

    And any opinion expressed by someone from one of those awkward ethnic groups is obviously tainted by race loyalty and invalid. You would say that wouldn’t you? I can certainly empathise with Luciana Berger when she had to field that sort of comment.

  19. @ Garj

    Nicely argued post, but if you want to address my post, then perhaps you should instead provide TW with some reasons why he should be less offensive.

  20. ALEC

    @” but quite often there is a ‘but….’ at the end of the sentence.”

    If you reads the Bowers book on JC, it claims that the “but” in his case ( and in the case of his ilk on The Left) is -But Jews are Rich.

    A key plank of Corbyn’s philosophy is redistribution of wealth-from The Few to THe Many. So being Rich is a sin which trumps all else.

    This is why, perhaps, he seemed to be blind to the anti-semitism in the Mear One Mural-it showed a bunch of Jewish Bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of The Poor.

  21. Tom Watson following through on his Marr interview :-

    Next up-his new Grouping of Centre Left Labour Party Backbench MPs.

    What will the Corbyn response to all this be ?

  22. @ Alec

    ‘It’s a funny thing, because I would accept what one writer said of Corbyn and Labour last week, to the effect that no one could seriously doubt that if the blackshirts hit the streets of Britain to round up the Jews, the Labour left would be the first on the streets to protect them. Yet still Labour has this unpleasant undercurrent that they struggle to deal with. ‘

    According to the statistics, there are 570k members of the LP and through the complaint system 0.01% have been found to have been AS. I don’t know why Jon is saying that there is a widespread and serious problem except that any AS should be considered serious. I suspect that he is offering an olive branch to save face for a number of the PLP and/or JLM.

    However, it is true that there have been some really vile things said… and (without wanting to confuse the situation further) a majority of which are later found not to have come from LP members.

    The original point still stands … the overwhelming majority of LP members would be acting to defend against the blackshirts.

  23. “Conservative MP Nadine Dorries says only one member of the European Research Group (ERG) of Brexiteers wants to leave the EU without a deal.”


  24. If there is a clear trend in the poll HIRETON linked that unusually but usefully poses a second referendum question based on present options rather than seeking to draw inferences from future fantasies or past regrets, it is that clear blue water has opened up between the two leave options.

    Remain is still first, nothing has a majority, DK is still quite high, but No WA is now well clear of the WA and unambiguously the second most popular option.

    Does this not give increasing force to both halves of Kinnock’s ref2 reservation, that having it on the ballot risks catastrophe but leaving it off is a travesty? And where does that leave ref2 as a solution?

  25. BBc reporting that the EU are making ‘good progress’ on drafting additional legal assurances about the nature of the backstop, but that these won’t be ready until approved at the next leaders summit, which won’t be until after March 12th.

    Several observations:

    1) It doesn’t take that long to draft these things
    2) the EU could agree these at any time – they have emails and telephones
    3) Ergo, the EU thinks that keeping the pressure of a no deal hovering over the HoC is good for them.

    People should really recognise this. There is no sign that the EU is going to crack at the last moment – as in fact they are willingly taking this to the wire themselves. They are doing this, I strongly suspect, because they know that May cannot get no deal through parliament.

    By making sure the definitive deal is not of offer before March 12th, they are giving maximum ammunition to those who want to get no deal off the table, and once that happens, the real negotiations can commence.

  26. At my GC on Saturday 3 contributions strayed in to unconscious Anti-Semitism imo. These are not Jew Hating right wing fascists but do conflate in a way described/ implied by Pete W and Alec.

    The anti-racist left has been good at accepting that millennia of socialization leaves us all with sub-conscious stereoytpes which acknowledging does not make us racist.

    Similarly inadvertently having a view and saying something which is Anti-Semitic does not make one an Anti-Semite.

    Failing to acknowledge that you may have those possibilities and failing as an institution to challenge and address though is imo can make you Anti-Semitic and possibly institutionally.

    Moreover, failing to challenge subliminal racism or any type gives succor to those with conscious prejudice.

  27. 4 types of delay (adjustment to Peston’s version)

    1/ May-EC technical delay
    May-EC deal passes at 11th hour, pretty much as it is with some mumble on the PD, and both sides need a few weeks to get legislation in place.

    2/ “No Deal” technical delay
    May-EC deal does not pass at 11th hour but nor does anything else. Allows for a raft of “mini-deals” (or “No Deal deals” as Varadkar called them) to receive necessary legislation.

    3/ Cooper2 (avec Kyle) delay
    Possibly a “fudge” on EP election but something 3mths+ that allows time for a PeoplesVote (new ref or GE)

    4/ “Replace transition” delay (Varadkar-Tusk)
    Stay in EU until 31Dec’20 and supposedly spend 21mths kicking the same can?!?
    Hard to see how this could fudge EP elections issue.

    All are possible but looking at the maths issues.

    1 – Clearly May’s objective but risks splitting CON
    2 – The default with a “fudge” that both sides would politically and economically desire (but only as last resort at very last moment)
    3 – Cooper2 might pass but that is a can kick. Kyle seems less likely to win a majority IMHO and also makes the EP election issue harder to fudge (ie 3 might end up as 2!)
    4 – Very unlikely IMHO but I can certainly see why Varadkar and Tusk would want it. If it is the only transition EU27 will accept then it might be the result of Cooper2 which puts us into scenario 3 with another long period of uncertainty.

  28. Alec
    “By making sure the definitive deal is not of offer before March 12th, they are giving maximum ammunition to those who want to get no deal off the table, and once that happens, the real negotiations can commence.”

    What does “off the table” mean in this context? Because one of the few glib simplifications of which the PM is fond that is unambiguously true at least in the narrow sense is that you only do this by agreeing a WA or cancelling the process altogether. At which point there is no negotiation real or otherwise.

    So what, short of that, do people mean by “off the table”?

  29. @Danny

    “If I was a remainer….was a leaver”


    Sorry Danny but “If I were a remainer… were a leaver” is correct – one uses the subjunctive.

  30. @ COLIN – Nadine Dorries possibly “L” worded by omission, I’ll guess at the bits she missed:

    “only one member of the European Research Group (ERG) of Brexiteers wants to (be blamed for) leave (ing) the EU without a deal”

    Also, note not all the nutters are paid up members of ERG!

    However, even with those adjustments her maths skills seem as bad as Julian Smith’s! Most folks agree their are about 20 ultr4s

    PS We don’t hear much about the “Brexit Delivery Group” (BDG) but they are something of a “party within a party” but like ERG this is far from a cohesive group and more akin to an “onion” in that it has layers with ultr4s at the core, “weaker” commitment as you move out, all the way out to “spies” at the extreme!

    (BDG is also like ERG in that the name is misnomer)

  31. Wilson/Kyle (sounds like a singer) will not be put to the HOC this week which in turn buys Labour some time as not backing could lead to a few more MPs resigning from the party.

    Labour believe Cooper/Letwin has the numbers to pass time due to being a shorter time period and being closer to no deal dead-line.

    Of course the PM may have an alternative option to render unnecessary.

  32. The lack of quality

    In the governance of the English polity

    Is a matter of jollity

    If not frivolity

    To some people of seniority

    In the UKPR sorority

  33. Trevor Warne,
    “Therefore to “respect” the wishes of the 48% should not mean “betraying” the wishes of the 52% but instead dealing with many of the reasons why Remainers voted as they did (ie fear and uncertainty)”

    Ah Trevs, there is a problem with your argument. If the fear and uncertainty is unfounded, then clearly it can be dealt with. Just proceed with brexit and it will be seen to have been unfounded.

    The problem comes if you (or rather the government) believe the fear is not unfounded, and proceeding with Brexit would confirm it because all the bad things happen.

    I have made this argument before: if the government believed Brexit would work out positively, they would have got it completed before now. Instead what they have done is create delays and excuses for failure. Clearly they expect failure.

    Whatever you think, conservative MPs think there is a lot to fear if Brexit happens.

  34. @Trevors – “…yet you continue to believe, with certainty, that we won’t “rescue” them in the future…”

    I really don’t know why you insist on making stuff up.

    At no point have I ever said this.

    I think you are suffering from ‘Straw Man Syndrome’.

  35. Alec

    “Parliament has yet to decide whether it actually wants to leave the EU.”

    Well actually it has already. The leaving date of March 29th is enshrined in UK law so leaving is the default situation as you have been told many times.


    I have waited 40+ years to leave, and I don’t want any delays.

  36. ToH has hit the nail on the head and this is why this process is so convoluted. Parliament has most definitely decided to leave the EU.

    What it is now dithering over (and in some ways has been since it decided) is whether to change its mind. And if so how. And whether it even can.

  37. @Syzygy – I can accept what you say regarding the numbers, but the nature of the complaints appear to be beyond strict definitions of cases.

    One of the problems appears to be the lack of urgency in dealing with complaints. I don’t really understand why Labour’s internal processes seem to take many months to address individual complaints.

    Secondly, this goes way beyond formal complaints. For example, we have just has anecdotal evidence from @Jim Jam of three instances on what he describes as ‘unconscious Anti-Semitism’ in his opinion. It does not sound like these are the subject of formal complaints, so the scale of the problem is masked.

    My final point is that this is really easy to deal with. I’ve just read in full the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and I can’t for the life of me imagine why Labour didn’t just adopt it word for word up front, or why Corbyn made such a fuss at the NEC meeting that did eventually adopt it (after three hours debate!) and ask for an qualifying introduction to be added.

    There is nothing in this that limits freedom of expression to criticise Israel or support the Palestinian cause. It actually states very clearly – “However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

    Corbyn’s Labour party got itself into a massive bind over this issue, largely I suspect for the reasons a few have picked up here today. Any other leader would have nailed this problem pretty much instantly, and the fact that Corbyn has failed on multiple occasions to deal satisfactorily with this doesn’t demonstrate he is antisemitic, but it does suggest he just isn’t very good and party management.

  38. @Valerie – you made me smile.

  39. Alec,
    It seems to be perfectly OK on here to say “Germany is trying to rule Europe for the third time in 100 years”
    I think that is xenophobic, personally.
    Try saying something like that about Israel and some people will certainly accuse you of antisemitism, which is aot more specific, and dangerous for you as a politician

  40. This is not a left/right issue, John McDonnell would have dealt with A/S better and quicker.

    We all know Corbyn was never meant to be leader but it was his turn to stand and lose, only he didn’t. His campaigning skills are evident but running an opposition is frankly beyond him.

    Just as Gove’s intellect is clear even to many Teachers who despise what he did when at Education, McDonnell has respect as a proper politician with joined up thinking throughout the PLP.

    To many on the right this makes him more dangerous than Corbyn and they are probably right from their perspective as he is aiming to forge an approach to Economic and industrial policy that can become entrenched in Labour’s official thinking for many years.

    One view would be the Labour can’t win on a ‘McDonnell’ platform and that may or may not be right but unease with Labour imo is less about policy than about leadership.

  41. Guardian newsfeed

    NEW – Labour announces it will put forward or support a second referendum amendment this week.

    Pop corn please.

  42. “Well actually it has already. The leaving date of March 29th is enshrined in UK law so leaving is the default situation as you have been told many times.”

    This is incorrect, as I understand it.

    The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on March 29th, but that doesn’t mean we leave the EU. Leaving the EU is governed exclusively by the Article 50 process, and cannot be governed by domestic UK legislation. Leaving the EU on March 29th is therefore not enshrined in UK law.

  43. Alec,

    I think you are right that Parliament has not decided that the UK should leave the EU. It voted to give the decision about notifying the intention to leave to the Prime Minister.

    And the European Union (Withdrawal) Act gives the power to repeal the 1972 ECA to a Minister of the Crown to do it by regulation. Anyway, this act does not decide whether to leave, it just tidies up afterwards.

    In neither case is anything actually decided by Parliament itself. Quite probably Parliament will never even consider whether to leave the EU.

  44. @ ALEC (12:58pm) – you clearly didn’t read my footnote!

    Anyway, the 8Feb vote set in motion a legal chain of events (the process bits), culminating in May writing a letter to Tusk (and him responding). May’s letter is here (and covers much of the process aspects):

    I’ll highlight this part:

    “I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union”

    I’m still not sure you’ve read (as in understood) A50(2) but it’s boring to go back over that.

    Since May’s letter and Donald’s reply we’ve passed the EU (Withdrawal) Bill 2018 (now Act of course) but yes until 11pm 29Mar’19 we haven’t “left” the EU and as per A50(2) that might be delayed or as per ECJ we still have the ability to unilaterally Revoke.

    However, unless you’re back to thinking we’ll just stay in the EU by default then either May has to ask for extension (or revoke A50) or HoC have to “enable” a method for someone else to write a new letter to Tusk.

    PS (4:42pm) I can’t make stuff up about the future, I don’t have a time machine! I can however look to the past as a guide of what we COULD do and am aware of the “means and motive” by which we CAN do those things. If that means I suffer from SMS then fine, I’ve been called a lot worse!

  45. @Andrew111 – “I think that is xenophobic, personally.”

    i agree.

  46. Corbyn:

    “… we are committed to also putting forward or supporting an amendment in favour of a public vote to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit being forced on the country.”

    Reading this carefully, before everyone gets excited, firstly it isn’t clear what a “public vote” means. Still talking about a general election?

    And secondly, who decides if it is a “damaging Tory Brexit”? Suppose the government accepts Labour’s brexit proposals. Is the public vote still on or is it off?

  47. “This is all hypothetical of course. As we’re seeing with the two main parties, neither is going to want a new ref, on anything, for a very long time.”

    @Trevors Warne February 25th, 2019 at 11:24 am

    “Corbyn: Labour to back second referendum”

    Guardian Live feed February 25th, 2019 at 5.35pm

    I think this is what we call ‘dynamic response’?

  48. @EOTW
    ‘Guardian newsfeed
    NEW – Labour announces it will put forward or support a second referendum amendment this week.’

    Tectonic plates moving, take together with the now very real likely hood of an extension, times they are a changing

  49. Andrew111,

    “It seems to be perfectly OK on here to say “Germany is trying to rule Europe for the third time in 100 years”
    I think that is xenophobic, personally.
    Try saying something like that about Israel and some people will certainly accuse you of antisemitism,”

    Or nuts…Israel trying to take over Europe!!!!


    “I’m OK if the “launch” is delayed for some final safety checks, we could certainly do with a bit more time to get all the seat belts in, airbags ready, more fuel onboard, etc.”

    So you know about as much about Rocketry as anything else. Seat belts??? Airbags???? oh and who launches a rocket with space in the fuel tanks!!!!

  50. This feels like a big moment.

1 2 3 4 5 39