Voting intention polling straight after a general election is probably the least interesting of any voting intention polling, especially a general election that has produced a decisive result. That goes all the more when two of the main parties have leadership contests, so voters don’t know who is going to lead them or what is going to be on offer. Nevertheless, any tracker needs to start somewhere.

So far we have had three voting intention polls since the general election. The first post-election YouGov poll came out in this morning’s Times, with topline figures of CON 49%(+4), LAB 29%(-4), LDEM 10%(-2), GRN 4%(+1). Fieldwork was over the weekend.

We have also had a first post-election poll from Opinium (fieldwork 15th-17th Jan), which had topline figures of CON 47%(+2), LAB 30%(-3), LDEM 9%(-3), GRN 4%(+1), and BMG (fieldwork 8th-10th Jan) which had figures of CON 44%(-1), LAB 29%(-4), LDEM 11%(-1), GRN 5%(+2).

All of them show a bigger lead for the Conservatives than at last month’s general election, probably no more than a honeymoon and a reflection that Labour don’t currently have a leader.


2,187 Responses to “Post-election voting intention polls”

1 42 43 44
  1. Couple of observations regarding how the government looks to be running things now.

    I think it’s pretty clear that, unlike other occupants of No 10, Johnson and his team have made a conscious decision not to get bogged down in the minute by minute battle for air time supremacy. They seem to have a policy of not getting heavily engaged in the minor, day to day spats that they look to shrug of as ‘Westminster bubble’ stories.

    That’s a significant departure from some previous communication operations that sought to control all information and counter any negative stories.

    My guess is that Johnson’s team know that they are going to face some tough circumstances, and don’t want to be seen as being at the beck and call of any journalist exploring a negative story. So they keep Johnson away and out of sight, and make like nothing has happened.

    Two things have already popped up that show how difficult this can get. Firstly, after several days of radio silence on the briefing war at the home office, Johnson had to intervene to give his backing to Patel, and presumably knock some heads together within the security services to prompt a highly unusual denial of the story.

    The second event was the flooding. They didn’t deploy Johnson to the flood areas, because that is part of responding to the daily news agenda. But this is now coming back to bite him. While unimportant in the scheme of things, there are risks involved in appearing less concerned about the trials of voters ordinary lives.

    I think this behavioural pattern is going to be interesting to watch, and particularly whether Johnson can resist the day to buffeting he is currently trying to evade.

  2. “ You could put the spare furniture in a storage unit.“

    That or add a Thorium Reactor!

    Peter.

  3. @ JAMESB – Well pretty sure Boris is doing and will be doing somethings pretty controversial early in his first term and Brexit can be the catalyst/excuse for a lot of things, BUT despite his huge majority he will want to be careful not to upset too many factions of CON MPs.

    Pick your battles!

    @ ALEC – NI is that bit of the island of Ireland in the North and currently part of the UK of GB+NI ;)

    But joking aside then you probably missed the repeat of the question from my 10:38am, so I’ll copy+paste:

    “Anyway, I’m keen to hear from you regarding a specific example of what (and when) EC-EU will actually do something (via JC or otherwise) regarding their view that we’ve broken the NI protocol in the WA”

    Barnier has just said, again, that he expects Boris to comply with every letter of the NI protocol in the WA but beyond the minor additional admin that Gove mentioned a while back (see 11:43am) then GB side isn’t going to do anything (at least not first) so what, when and why will EC-EU do something.

    So, since you are an expert on all things NI in the WA then I’m sure you can answer such a simple question with a specific example.

  4. @Peter C

    “That or add a Thorium Reactor!
    Peter.”

    ———

    And a Polywell! (Well, one can dream…)

  5. ALEC

    @” Johnson had to intervene to give his backing to Patel, and presumably knock some heads together within the security services to prompt a highly unusual denial of the story.”

    An alternative view of that episode might , on the other hand, be:-

    Johnson was very keen to be seen in support of Patel in her efforts to get shot of serially useless & ineffective Sir Philip Rutnam. The security services were keen to disown any part of the adversarial briefing against Patel, which Sir Mark Sedwill subsequently wrote to civil servants about.

  6. “Two things have already popped up that show how difficult this can get. Firstly, after several days of radio silence on the briefing war at the home office, Johnson had to intervene to give his backing to Patel, and presumably knock some heads together within the security services to prompt a highly unusual denial of the story.”

    ——

    the Government response has a certain efficiency. I.e. ignore it unless it starts to get a head of steam, then quash it before it takes off completely.

    In the days of Blair, before there were all these other means of communication, you might try and control the mainstream media. But once you have all this social media gubbins and online blogs and journals, including under-the-radar stuff going on in Facebook etc. you might need a different paradaigm. One more akin to handling viral stuff.

    I.e., if you can’t prevent all infections, you just get ready to step in quick if one threatens to become a pandemic.

  7. @Trevors – yes – I missed that, although I have already in effect answered the question several times.

    We seem to have agreed on the point that without any action from the JC, all goods moving from GB to NI will require full SM compliance checks. That’s good.

    If we imagine that the UK declines to operate these, then your question appears to ask what exactly can the EU do about it. Now we’re just down to how compliance can be forced.

    Firstly, you need to widen your view here. This isn’t just about the EU. This agreement places UK government policy on NI under the auspices of the ECJ, and further, directs UK courts to adhere to ECJ case law on any matters arising before them related to the WA (including anything that happens in the ECJ after the end of the transition, just for some detail).

    Under (I think) article 4 of the WA, anyone, or any group with a legal personality, can ask UK courts to uphold anything within the WA that meets the tests of direct effect under EU law.

    This means that you don’t necessarily have to wait for the EU to do anything. You don’t need to launch a tribunal at the International Court of Arbitration – although of course, the EU could do this as well.

    Under the WA, any company or individual, anywhere in the EU (or the UK), that believes the UK is acting against their interests with regards the Irish Protocol, by failing in their obligations under the WA, can bring a legal action against the UK government. This can be done in the UK courts.

    As with that letter, I would assume failing to act on the instruction of the courts might end up with contempt charges etc, and would be pretty serious for the government.

    The judgement would come from UK courts, operating with regard to ECJ interpretations and case law, and the legal recourse would be open to anyone within the EU to take an action against HMG if the actions of HMG qualified under the direct effect notion.

    I guess it’s possible that EU based companies could sue the UK government in British courts for damages as well, although I guess that would be a civil matter. The courts would have to take into account ECJ rules when deciding on such cases, but if UK government inaction were to adversely affect EU traders, then we’d probably end up having to pay handsomely for that, plus costs.

    Basically we’re back at the point where Johnson is threatening to do something that is unlawful, and the last time he did that and lots of people said he could just ignore the courts etc, he went ahead and did just what he was told at the appointed time.

    I would expect a similar outcome here. Basically anyone can take Johnson to court in the UK for failure to comply, the courts are obliged to apply the WA in full, as defined by the ECJ, so all you need is one person with the cash and the desire to kick off and Johnson will be forced to comply.

    My money is on St Gina of Remainia. Either that or some Irish goat farmer.

  8. @TREVOR WARNE
    @ALEC

    https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1232583519811055618

    “Anyway, I’m keen to hear from you regarding a specific example of what (and when) EC-EU will actually do something (via JC or otherwise) regarding their view that we’ve broken the NI protocol in the WA”

    I think I an others have answered this question at least 3 times.

    EU goes to the UK courts and ECJ courts they would be able to do it at any time but I reckon it will be done close to the date of the end of transition
    UK government will be found in contempt of court since the way the law is written all items are deem at risk and need checks and I reckon ECJ does hefty fines

    Think of it like the extension letter we have a action that is required of the government to be readied for a certain time frame. They can either disregard the law or they can comply.

    it is why it is written that way

    If you were sitting as a judge you will have no choice to see them in contempt of court this is like the letter regarding extension, I believe you said then that Cummings had a cunning plan to avoid this and so crash out…….

    Obviously they can do nothing but actually I would think that it would be in their interest to basically go to court since it sells well with say the US that UK is ‘breaking the GFA’ and even the UK law thinks they are bad………

    The law was not design as some short term measure like the extension letter it is designed to be permanent

    Now your argument is that the UK is not prepared to do any of this stuff and I agree which is why the Barnier has pointed this out.

    As I said what happens if UK breaks the law? Hell knows I am not sure what would have happened if Suella but dim was in place rather than Cox I suspect Johnson may have chanced it and gone to jail for brexit I think the problem is that if we are at that point we would have been at breakdown of talks and will be defaulting to WTO so for the EU it would be fun to see the UK government in breach of it own sovereign law and someone going to jail for it

  9. @ALEC
    @TREVOr WARNE

    snap….

    Although your explanation was better than mine.

  10. Well well-Lagarde will be doing somersaults.

    Every viral cloud has a silver lining :-) :-)

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-02-26/germany-s-infamous-black-zero-budget-rule-may-be-gone-forever

  11. @COLIN

    It will be interesting to see if it is temporary or permanent. What is interesting is that they don’t need the money in the short term unless they go for a big infrastructure plan (something I think they need)

    That they have even announced it is a real change though

  12. Germany is preparing for the coronavirus.

    Chinese car sales fell last month by 92%, so if it spreads globally the impact in Germany could be huge.

    Meanwhile our new Chancellor still seems to be looking to give Middle England Tax cuts, in an economy that relies on Consumer spending for growth.

    Good luck with that if we need a China style Lock Down.

    Peter.

  13. @ ALEC / PTRP – Firstly I’ve not agreed with ALEC, no idea why he keeps insisting I have. Anyway…

    Thank you PTRP for providing a thread with an example. So let’s examine that:

    “For example, flour and sugar imported from GB by a small bakery in Belfast would fall into that category (of being at risk of onward sale to RoI) even if in reality there was no risk that any of its bread and cakes were ever carried into Ireland or elsewhere in the EU”

    (context added)

    Yes, I accept the EC-EU will point to the NI Protocol in the WA and make a “fuss” about that (and Boris can apply some “seriously, like WTF, how petty are they” spin to that as and when – remember it’s not always about ‘winning’ a court case as we saw with the (non)prorogation that eventually led to a GE and massive majority for Boris)

    The timing of this is important and I agree-ish with PTRP that this will be close to the end of transition (the whole “chicken+egg” issue of not being able to say we’ve broken a rule until it’s clear we will)

    Now I’m aware the process is different to OLAF but let’s take a big case of where EC-EU have claimed UK has been “naughty”

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_5807

    Do you see the “timing” issue?? Shall I resend the whole scorecard of EU infringements so folks can see other examples of “non-compliance” to EC rules.

    So what about “remedy” – what will EC-EU demand (and when!)

    Now if you had a huge excel spreadsheet with all the x-border trade and you make the assumption that Lewis is a bit “dim” and Braverman is a bit “naughty” then I can certainly see EC-EU (post Jan’21) demanding financial “remedy” (80-120million per year perhaps depending on how much trade diversion[1] you assume will occur)

    However, if they start demanding every bakery in NI tracks every sale then.. well.. why do you think Cox was quite happy to pass over to Braverman and why Dom+co. will be itching for EC to get “petty” about applying the letter of the law in NI.

    and obviously if EC want to step in and demand inspections in NI or on the NI-RoI border then.. well.. we can point to the “priority” being the stability of peace in NI and go all “tut tut” at EC-EU for putting that at jeopardy (knowing that US congress might be watching)

    IMO, we’ll sort this all before Jan’21 but if we don’t then the issues will quickly get a lot messier than the “risk” that someone from just South of the border bought a loaf of bread in Belfast! Again, note ex-ERG chair and barking mad arch-Brexiteer Braverman is now AG

    PS Now we’ve obviously jumped ahead to a “hypothetical” example but the other obvious point should be that we aren’t going to say we’re going to break the rules before we do – cue a “dim” chap like Lewis!

    In the flow diagram you would want EC-EU to “move” first and given how long they take to agree to stuff I’m 99.9% sure they’ll not want to get to say late Nov’20 with these kinds of issues looking to get “messy”. If talks break down soon then we can start again from MRAs and TRQs up (and note even in Barnier’s current mandate their are sections that mention Ireland’s unique circumstances)

    PPS I have zero inside knowledge on this and write in my own capacity. I have plenty of business interests that are relevant to the eventual outcome and hence have an interest to think a few steps ahead and apply some “Real World” experience of how plenty of countries bend and break rules from time to time (without malice aforethought obvioulsy – this isn’t dieselgate!)

    [1] Gove has told businesses they need to adapt and clearly some supply chain changes will reduce the ‘current’ levels of x-border trade (eg GB exports that previously went to one destination (either NI or RoI) and then ‘split’ might, from Jan’21, ‘split’ by port of entry (eg JLR might send 20 cars to Belfast and 40 to Dublin rather than 60 to Belfast and use Irish road network to move the other 40 South). Most trade by value is “bulk” and “trackable” with large companies already producing documentation, paying VAT, etc. I fully accept SMEs are bigger by volume but in the context of uncollected tax/tariff then value is more relevant (and NI and UK gov both offer funds for SMEs to adapt – bagged a bit of that cash meselves!)

  14. 5:38pm “simples” version

    Will Shylock (Barnier) demand a pound of (Boris) flesh?

    (and yes I’m aware some folks think that will be anti-semitic – its not intended to be, get a grip!)

  15. @TREVOR WARNE

    I am glad you are not Suella but dim……….because you would last long with your idol Dom……

    Taking it really slowly:

    1. WA is in UK law
    2. As ALEC said anyone can rock up to the UK courts and say UK government is break said UK law
    3. UK courts will use ECJ case law to resolve the dispute.
    4 it does not need to touch ECJ at all

    As we have both said several times this is like the extension letter……

    So any one of

    1. EC
    2. Irish Government
    3. Gina
    4. Irish farmers
    5. NI farmers
    6. Brexiteers etc

    can set this in motion

    It is why Suella but Dim has been made AG it is because she will apparently find the bit of legaleze that means that the checks are not required, in the same way that Cox found ways of Johnson not sending the letter.

    ;-)

    Sooooooooooooooo I think you are misunderstanding the issue here.

    You are trying to complicate something that is f#@king simple.
    And yes UK agreed that everything is at risk and thus require the JC to be running because they need to give a list of items they believe should not be at risk so it is in their interest to get that list together and get it through arbitration if EU disagrees

    lastly ECJ can assess fines and do so punitively which is why I said you would use both routes

  16. @TREVOR WARNE

    having read your post again I think you believe that because we are bound by EU law that HAS to goe to ECJ. It uses ECJ case law and precedent BUT it is wholly UK law courts

  17. @Trevs – not at all sure you’ve got this.

    The point from Peretz’ twitter thread on this that @PRTP linked to is v v funny though –

    “UK courts – including the NI courts – are bound by section 7A of the Withdrawal Act (inserted by Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement Act) to give these provisions direct effect; to follow ECJ rulings; and to order the UK government to implement its obligations under the Protocol.”

    So, this government insisted on a clause that gives the EU (and any other affected party) the right to ask UK courts to enforce the protocol provisions, and (thanks to Johnson’s new clause) those legal decisions must mirror ECJ law.

    This is the equivalent of Johnson wrestling the gun from his attacker and then blowing his own foot off.

    And you still think these people have a cunning plan?

    Quite gratified really, as Peretz has just confirmed what I thought from reading the WA, with some additional detail.

  18. @ALEC

    Am I really missing something here…….
    It feels like arguing with a flat earther at this point

  19. Peter Cairns Good luck with that if we need a China style Lock Down.

    If we reach that stage it will already be too late for it to make any difference, so it won’t be done.

  20. PTRP

    Any law Parliament makes, Parliament can un-make or amend. How big is that majority again? Personally, I reckon Johnson would relish a very very public and very very messy fight regarding ECJ – it suits his agenda of control and sovereignty. And it opens the avenue to him to bring the Supreme Court down a peg or two.

    The WA is only pertinent until we leave with an FTA and come under it’s terms, or leave with No Deal. In either scenario that,s the Article 50 process completed.

  21. @ANDREW WILLIAMS
    The WA is only pertinent until we leave with an FTA and come under it’s terms, or leave with No Deal. In either scenario that,s the Article 50 process completed.

    No that is not true that is why it was agreed before future relationship it is a separate treaty. It is essentially about the customs border which will have to exisit somewhere becasue we want the ability to diverge.

    Any law Parliament makes, Parliament can un-make or amend. How big is that majority again? Personally, I reckon Johnson would relish a very very public and very very messy fight regarding ECJ – it suits his agenda of control and sovereignty. And it opens the avenue to him to bring the Supreme Court down a peg or two.

    Agreed the UK can change it law at any time, We can break the treaty at any time.

    BUT the same parliament with an 80 seat majority passed the bill into law, the law says that all goods are deemed at risk and thus need checks, there is a joint committee to resolve which items can be seen as no risk andthat has arbitration and this will continue after the transition period and will be permenent until the NI assembly decides otherwise or as you said the UK parliament decides to abandon the treaty.

    Anyone could take the government to court regarding breech of law.

  22. @ PTRP – Oh please let it be Queen Gina that takes UK to court, please, please, please!

    I’m not sure if Team EC-EU (which includes most of the EUphiliac Groan readers on UKPR) have noticed any of the following:

    – We’ve left the EU (Vote.Leave1a)
    – Boris became leader of CON, purge#1,2 and the opposition gave him the GE he wanted, which he won (Vote.Leave1b)
    – EU(WA)’20 removed the ability to extend transition
    – purge#3 removed the last of the “softies”

    ie Brexiteers have taken back control

    Maybe that was Queen’s Gina’s plan all along but if you want her to score some more own goals then fantastic – please post a link to her crowd funding site when she steps back in to “help” :-) :-)

    I’m not forking out 20k/day for Lord Pannick though!!

    PS Here’s another bit of bonkers Shylock “logic”. Barnier insists EU will apply Rules of Origin with ruthless attention to detail in an FTA.

    So.. cars then. Even if you assume UK producers can adapt a bit between now and Jan’21 then 80%+ of UK cars will face a 10% tariff on export to EU but only 10% or less of EU cars will face a reciprocal 10% tariff on export to UK. Yo don’t even have to chuck that into a spreadsheet with trade data and tariffs in it to see the obvious flaw in that “logic”

    So… Errr… I don’t think we’ll be so keen on Barnier’s FTA then.

    How about instead forget the FTA and Rules of Origin and both sides just pay the 10% tariff on 100% of their car exports to each other and then outside of EU state aid rules, etc Boris+Rishi can help domestic producers “adapt” to life post Brexit.

    Another case of simples – non ;)

    @ AW – The GFA needs a rewrite anyway. IMO we’ll play the “peace in Ireland” is the priority card at some point but if someone like Queen Gina wants to step in asap and speed things up then sounds good to me!

  23. @ PTRP – There are “inconsistencies” between applying the NI Protocol in full with ruthless “flour in bread” style intent and the current GFA.

    When two pieces of law conflict then.. well.. maybe we’ll find out.

    Of course Boris couldn’t remove everything toxic from May’s shockingly bad deal but it certainly suits my team for EC-EU and EUphiliacs to think Boris capitulated :-) :-)

    Bon chance being on the side of the team that makes the first move to put stability of peace on the island of Ireland at risk and remember Lewis, Braverman, Boris et al are all “dim” right – no attention to detail, etc :-) :-)

    Gina, Barnier and everyone on your team though – super sharp – always one step ahead and keen to make their move first! Maybe bring Letwin back into the squad :-) :-)

  24. PTRP You strike me as one of the sort that a few weeks ago were saying there was no way Johnson would be able to bin early release for terrorists withut human rights problems. It received Royal Assent today and is binned.

    The Withdrawal Agreement (which government can tear up unilaterally anytime it wants) is only applicable under the terms of the Withdrawal Act ( which Parliament can unilaterally scrap anytime it wants).

    And Johnson rules both government and Parliament.

    The Withdrawal Agreement is only a ,bridge, to span the time we technically leave with the time we fully leave with either no deal or some form of FTA and that is all. The Withdrawal Act is merely to facilitate either outcome.

    I will lay money that we leave, in December, with either No Deal or a No Deal with some side deals in mutually strategic areas. At that point both the Withdrawal Act and the Withdrawal Agreement are to all intents and purposes redundant.

  25. Anyone could take the government to court regarding breech of law.

    Not if the law no longer exists.

  26. @Andrew Williams – “The Withdrawal Agreement (which government can tear up unilaterally anytime it wants) is only applicable under the terms of the Withdrawal Act ( which Parliament can unilaterally scrap anytime it wants).”

    You are probably more wrong on this than you will ever realise. Carefully study the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and you’ll start to get a flavour of just how wrong you are.

    There are some tightly defined circumstances whereby the government could declare the WA void, but these won’t happen in this case.

    The Withdrawal Agreement is not a bridge either – that is your second complete misunderstanding of the position. It stands, whatever trade deal we do or don’t get.

    I hope you can accept this and perhaps go and do some homework and actually understand about some of the issues you are posting on.

    I would hate to think that you could be one of the people who can be fooled all of the time.

  27. The Trevors,
    “PPS I have zero inside knowledge on this and write in my own capacity.”

    Do the others do the same, and do any of them have more knowledge?

    “[1] Gove has told businesses they need to adapt ”

    Surely a rather stupid statment? Many business will not be able to.

    Andrew Williams,
    “The Withdrawal Agreement is only a ,bridge,”

    Well, no. It will exist forever unless cancelled. While the Uk as a sovereign nation can do anything it wants, (and always could), it would be pretty stupid to just abrogate an international treaty except under its stated terms. Which create a permanent special status for Ireland, and permanent adherence by the Uk to EU rules.

  28. @Danny – “it would be pretty stupid to just abrogate an international treaty”

    It couldn’t anyway. The UK courts have an obligation to judge any action by the Uk government in light of ECJ law with regards the WA. Any action through parliament to strike down the WA would not therefore be legal. Only via a constitutional coup that changed entirely the legal basis of government within the UK could anyone claim to be able to overturn the WA.

    This is why all the daft arguments about parliamentary sovereignty are just that. Parliament isn’t sovereign in so many ways.

  29. Alec: This is why all the daft arguments about parliamentary sovereignty are just that. Parliament isn’t sovereign in so many ways.

    I see that apparent-brexiteer Andrew Williams has conceded that very point with his:

    Johnson rules both government and Parliament. (8.00pm today)

  30. @ PTRP – I’m still laughing at the thought of Queen Gina taking HMG thru UK courts coz some Belfast bakery RISKED selling bread with some GB ingredients in it to someone who then smuggled the loaf back to RoI :-) :-)

    Best bit is Starmer will almost certainly, like 99.9%+ certain, back Queen Gina again – oh please can LAB folks make that dull, establishment, white, London, millionaire, Sir, male who is DETAIL obsessed leader of opposition – it’s like Xmas coming early for Boris+co. :-) :-) :-)

    Anyway, if you had thought this through back in 2018 or 2019 then you’d realise that the most likely party to take HMG to court for WA violation was going to be French farmers – I remember mentioning Varadkar[1] being run over by a French tractor quite a few times!

    Small EU(WA)’20 update is that now with Stormont back up and running then the “Chuckle Sisters” (Foster and O’Neill) might jump in front of the Boris bus AND nudge Queen Gina out of the way before she scores her hat trick of own goals (car crash#3) AND before Macron drives a tractor over Varadkar

    ALL TO PLAY FOR as they say – 3 way race at the moment but Macron’s odds have widened.

    You’ve mentioned the US angle before and yes, very important. Let’s bring Nancy Pelosi back into this please. What did she say?

    “Pelosi said Brexit “cannot be allowed to imperil” the Good Friday Agreement that ended decades of conflict”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/nancy-pelosi-says-no-uk-us-trade-deal-if-brexit-risks-irish-peace/

    So you wanna be on the side that “imperils” the GFA? My lot are all f*$kwits remember with no idea what we’re doing but we certainly will not be “imperling” the GFA first – we ain’t taking anyone to any court over a hypothetical pre-emptive loaf of bread risk – 100% sure of that.

    You should have left it to ALEC to provide the example but OMG I need to buy you a few beers for the laughs your providing!

    [1] and pretty sure he’ll stay caretaker until this plays out although I do hope SF win a few more seats in the next attempt to sort of their mess (probably still not enough to sort out a functional govt but you never know)

  31. New thread

  32. Barnier might off course spot (have already spotted?) the “imperil GFA” risk and TRY[1] to pre-emptively throw Varadkar under the French tractor early on

    See his mandate, #5 (p3).

    “..While preserving the integrity of the Single Market, the envisaged partnership should ensure that issues arising from Ireland’s unique geographic situation are addressed”

    https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/02/25/eu-uk-relations-council-gives-go-ahead-for-talks-to-start-and-adopts-negotiating-directives/

    [1] Complex one and no way am I going through the whole Association Agreement, mixed deals, “provisionally applied” stuff again – it’s just too much to watch this play out to bovver with repeating the basics!

    However, if/when RoI farmers get any kind of “special status” then you can bet your last Euro that the French will be over that! Of course if it plays out that RoI need a multi-billion Euro bail out then.. cue the “Frugal Four” and a whole bunch of other issues!

    More popcorn please :-) :-) :-)

  33. @ANDREW WILLIAMS

    PTRP You strike me as one of the sort that a few weeks ago were saying there was no way Johnson would be able to bin early release for terrorists withut human rights problems. It received Royal Assent today and is binned.

    Well I cannot help your perceptions since that I agreed with you that UK government can change the laws yet this same parliament with the same 80 seat majority has passed the very law that you seem to be upset about. Strikes me as you are directing your anger at the wrong person.

    As others have said that now it is passed it may provision a constitutional crisis but parliament has done much worse, we have fallen into dictatorship, parlaiment have mandated killing of a our sovereign and many other deeds that would be seen as not constitutional.

    So have at it…….Lobby your MP to cancel the WA. it is possible even if seen as unconstitutional I did not make the rules

    As to your first point I would not have argued that the binning of early release is human right, since it is not. if you have been convicted of a crime and given a tariff.it is by the pleasure of the probation and thus the government that the tariff be reduced and indeed most tariff are not reduced and the person is often let out on license so they are still under tariff. You seem to a person that seems to make claims that you can not substantiate so I feel you should go back and read up on the WA and the issues surrounding it, you may find it enlightening

    I too have said that UK will leave on WTO terms because of the issue of sovereignty and politics of brexit. However I had anticipated that Johnson would not agree to the WA and I while I hope I am wrong, I would prefer a deal, but since brexit is driven by good number of people like yourself and TREVOR and most deals will show up the inconsistencies of brexit I am not sure that Tories would be able to sell anything other than WTO to it’s base.

  34. Passtherockplease,
    ” since brexit is driven by good number of people like yourself and TREVOR and most deals will show up the inconsistencies of brexit I am not sure that Tories would be able to sell anything other than WTO to it’s base.”

    Maybe this is a point to engage in some consideration of possible futures, as the Trevors do endlessly.

    So far conservatives have tried to stop Brexit by talking it out, highlighting its inconsistencies and pointing out it would fail to deliver what was promised. The result of that strategy was their vote share plumetting.

    So they gave that up, got in a new leader recognised as the voice of leave, and held another election while his slogans were still fresh.

    Johnson has now delivered some form of Brexit, so technically has satisfied his mandate. The WA he slid through with a lot of spin commits the UK to be a vassal state of the EU, as much discussed here. Yet there is a long way to go to see the end state.

    He could move to WTO/minimal deal, which would leave the UK as a vassal state with poorer trading position than pre brexit. Slow economic decline, I do not dismiss the posibility this will an absolute numeric decline rather than just a relative decline compared to other developed nations.

    He could totally repudiate the WA because of its internal commitments to follow EU rules. Unlike others, I do not accept this is constitutionally impossible. The Uk constitution says parliament is sovereign, and anything parliament can do it can undo. Yes, parliament could irrevocably transfer its powers elsewhere, but I dont see how this has happened here. What it has done is give international commitments, which would cause an unholy mess if it did unilaterally decide to default on them. Worse outcome than WTO (it would be a repudiation of WTO status)

    He could now do a deal which formally agrees to accept much more of the EU trading system and many more EU rules. Depending on degree, this could more or less reproduce existing trade terms, so logically trade and growth would be unaffected for reasons stemming from those terms. However, I still see the Uk going forward as a less attractive place to base international industry, including the financial sector. I dont see how that can be avoided by even a near perfect emulation of membership, but not actually a member.

    If the government insists on the right to withdraw from some or all of the agreed terms simply by its own choice in the future, this will seriously undermine industry confidence, because there will be no certainty going forward.

    Whatever he chooses, there is much to be said for doing it quickly, to allow as much time as possible for it to settle. The alternative would be to drag it out to the point of the next election, so that could again be held on a promise of delivering. Depending on timing, a middle way could be sold as a short term brexit slump, but true believers should hold firm and re-elect because the benefits are coming.

    I dont know which of those plays best. I still believe a bad brexit will destroy the conservatives as an electable party, and would creat a new rejoin party. Johnson won on a united leave block vote. If next time this has splintered but rejoin has solidified, then a win is there for someone on the remain side.

    If labour do not support remain, their vote will splinter, and the likely outcome is a new rejoin strong party. Splintering of the left could let through con once again, but the outlook for the democratic system would be very bleak. It would be a government with truly minority support.

    An early election seems quite possible, either because the conservative MPs splinter again (BJ is running scared of remainers and is afraid to allow them in cabinet), or because matters have reached a critical window, eg after a deal is done but before its economic consequences can manifest. Cut and run for 2 years extra term if that looks good, for example.

  35. @DANNY

    I believe part of the problem is as TREVOR WARNE says everyone that is in an important position is a leaver indeed they are mostly members of the ERG so I think part of the problem is that there is less of the calibration towards a soft brexit than I believe you are suggesting.

    Remember even if you think of the majority of MP as pure drones it is those at the top that define policy and I would have thought that having won a large majority Johnson has enough power to basically set an agenda that others will have to follow. The other point was that most of those that wanted a softer brexit have left the party.

    The members of the Tory party have always wanted brexit over 80% of them wanted to leave the point is now you would agree that the executive. MPs membership and voting intention is pretty much aligned.

    As to what they sell as brexit: This is where I think the inconsistencies have left me stating it looks like the only way forward is the one that is most practical and the least inconsitencies is WTO, any deal will mean throwing someone under the bus. it becomes a question of who you can throw under the bus:

    Can Johnson throw fishermen under the bus? I would suggest no they are rather symbolic of brexit
    Can Johnson throw farmers under the bus? I think they can since they are not so symbolic of brexit it could be sold as them being scroungers and needing to change

    just these two examples point to the problems that the government will have to contend with. The real point is that he needs to keep the large sections of voters onside and brexit in many ways is the glue for the coalition of support he has.

    lastly what happens brexit will be the new normal, for many people they will just get used to it. Rather like we got used to Iraq at some point in the future it I believe we will realise that this was not the best idea but I suspect there will be no going back. I also think that the EU will change, there will be still a limited transfer union but I believe they will be forced to relax the fiscal rules and do debt resets. UK is on a different trajectory in terms of how our economy is fashioned, our housing market and the like

  36. @Danny

    Wrong on Brexit

    Wrong on herd immunity

    Keep believing old boy!

1 42 43 44