ICM have released their weekly tracker on the EU referendum. The poll was conducted between Friday evening and today, so it was after Cameron’s EU deal was announced but was almost entirely before Boris Johnson endorsed the leave campaign (only eleven responses are “post-Boris”). Topline voting intentions are REMAIN 42%, LEAVE 40% – so wholly in line with ICM’s polling before the deal. Tabs are here.

Today also saw some new YouGov polling of Labour party members, conducted for Ian Warren. The fun stuff from this is probably the data on the leadership (out tomorrow on Ian’s site) but the initial slice of data covers the policy views of Labour party members, and compares them to Labour party voters and to the general public.

The Labour party membership is increasingly in line with the views of their leader. 68% of Labour members opose renewal of Trident, 64% think trade unions should have more influence, 58% say they wouldn’t vote for any Labour leader if they had supported airstrikes against Syria. Recent recruits are even more Corbynite – over 80% of those who’ve joined in the last year are anti-Trident, over 70% think unions should have more influence and would only support a leader who opposed airstrikes in Syria.

A leftwards consolidation of the Labour party membership however risks opening up a significant gulf between the views of members and voters. The most obvious example of that here is immigration. On salience, health and the economy are seen as two of the three biggest issues facing the country by Labour members, Labour voters and the general public. But on immigration 60% of the general public think it is a major issue, 46% of Labour voters do, just 17% of Labour members do; 78% of Labour party members think immigration is good for the economy, only 41% of Labour voters do, only 29% of the general public.

Finally, on the EU referendum Labour party members are overwhelmingly in favour of REMAIN – 81% say they’ll vote to stay, 11% to leave, 8% don’t know.


96 Responses to “New ICM EU polling and YouGov Labour members survey”

1 2
  1. @Colin

    I meant to respond to that when you mentioned it before but I was taking coffee at the time and someone got talking to me about music and, well, I forgot.

    But I think you’ve picked on a salient thing. The “leap in the dark” thing seems to me to be a counter to what happened in the Scots Indy ref. trying to sell specific positives is liable to engender the “OMG you think we can’t look after ourselves!!” response I mentioned earlier. While pointing out specific potential negatives of leaving results in the “project fear” accusation.

    You mentioned the stoking of doubt, and the “leap in the dark” gambit might be a way of playing to the doubt thing while being harder to mischaracterise.

    I should say, that of course some peeps try and resort to stoking FUD unnecessarily when faced with an argument that although of merit, they find unpalatable, a tactic so routine, banal and desperate it makes one shakes one’s head in disbelief, but this is an instance when evoking it seems rather more apposite.

    Like it was over the oil price in the Indy ref…

  2. @TheOtherHoward

    “As a 75 year old I could not disagree more. The main reason i am passionate about leaving the UK is that I want a better future for the younger generation which I think will only be possible outside the EU, which IMO is in terminal decline anyway.. My hope is that the younger generation will listen to those older (and possibly wiser) than themselves and join us in voting OUT. ”

    I can remember my grandmother announcing she would be voting to remain in back in 1975 for exactly the same reason – because she wanted a better future for her grandchildren.

    In her case it was because she had lived through world war 2 and saw the “commom market” as a way of preventing a repeat.

    This was in spite of her understandable dislike of the Germans ( to put it mildly ! )

    I suspect her view was typical of her generation though I have no polling evidence for that.

    Personally I view it as a measure of the sucess of the EU that this is no longer a consideration.

  3. In fact, the more I look at this the less bothered I am about Brexit.

    Under QMV, UK’s exit terms could be rejected by 13 states and still be passed, depending on the size of the states objecting.

    Even if the French voted it down, they could be joined by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland and Romania and the terms would still be passed.

    There are all manner of other combinations, and it is certainly easier if the Germans don’t object, but I really don’t see any problems negotiating a reasonable exit deal under the QMV system. Far more problematical if it’s unanimous.

  4. RICH:

    “Perhaps they should consider that progressive 18-30 year olds have a tendency to turn into conservative 70 year olds”

    Not so, according to YouGov:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/04/they-get-older-tory-voters-move-right-and-labour-v/

    (BTW Anthony, I have a reasonably innocuous comment awaiting moderation)

  5. @Colin
    The position under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is not quite as you stated, but:
    “3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
    [My emphasis]
    ie any member state leaving under Article 50 leaves after 2 years unless
    a. terms have been agreed earlier
    or b. that state and all the others agree to keep talking.

  6. ALEC

    @”So that’s a ‘no ifs, no buts, cast iron pledge’ then?”

    You are suggesting that the Prime Minister, after holding a nationwide Referendum in which he advocated the losing option, would refuse to implement the winning option?

    @”This means a satisfactory exit deal is far easier to negotiate”

    That is for the Outs to convince the electorate about. As I say, the Article 50 timetable may leave us on the outside of a number of tarrif barriers- ie Two years of uncertainty followed by an indefinite period of uncertainty. Outs need to find an answer to this portrayal. I think it will be difficult.

  7. @Alec

    Yeah, we’ll be OK either way, what’s for the best is harder to gauge. If we are talking about younger people however, knowing that they face a future here of ridiculous utility and housing costs alongside suppressed wages and difficulties getting secure employment, and seeing that immigration is here to stay…

    …because as you point out they’re letting even more in from outside the EU – and even our public schools are increasingly dominated by foreign nationals – and it seems like theythey might want us to be the largest nation in Western Europe by around 2050… And under the current economic model immigration is a key way of ensuring continued growth even if there’s less per capita…

    …so the rational response of the young is to keep the option of easily securing work in the EU open. There’ll be immigration either way after all…

  8. @Alec

    Yeah, we’ll be OK either way, what’s for the best is harder to gauge. If we are talking about younger people however, knowing that they face a future here of ridiculous utility and housing costs alongside suppressed wages and difficulties getting secure employment, and seeing that immigration is here to stay…

    …because as you point out they’re letting even more in from outside the EU – and even our public schools are increasingly dominated by foreign nationals – and it seems like theythey might want us to be the largest nation in Western Europe by around 2050… And under the current economic model immigration is a key way of ensuring continued growth even if there’s less per capita…

    …so the logical response of the young might be to keep the option of easily securing work in the EU open. There’ll be immigration either way after all…

  9. DAVE

    That is what I said-or tried to say.

    If “favourable” trade relationships cannot be concluded within 2 years, then we sit outside the tariff barrier until & unless the other members unanimously agree to talk further about the terms of our particular relationship.

  10. @LURKINGGHERKIN
    The YouGov link is interesting
    First, the question asked was not of whether people’s views change on some unspecified objective scale, but whether people themselves think their own views have changed.
    Second, 32% of 18-24s say they don’t know whether their views have changed (which doesn’t say much for their self awareness), while by the time they are 25, and especially after they are 60, they realize that their views are much as they have always been, though of those that think they have changed, most think they have become more right wing.

  11. @Colin – “You are suggesting that the Prime Minister, after holding a nationwide Referendum in which he advocated the losing option, would refuse to implement the winning option?”

    No, not altogether. I suspect he would resign, and the EU would move quickly to persuade the UK to have another vote, on different terms. It’s all been done before, albeit not after a leave vote.

    “That is for the Outs to convince the electorate about. As I say, the Article 50 timetable may leave us on the outside of a number of tarrif barriers- ie Two years of uncertainty followed by an indefinite period of uncertainty. Outs need to find an answer to this portrayal. I think it will be difficult.”

    I don’t, to be honest. As we are the world’s fifth largest economy and a net importer of goods from the EU, there will be very significant pressure from EU business to conclude a fair deal quickly. They would stand to lose more than we would, so it would be in everyone’s interests.

    Here I am sounding as jaunty as the SNP did before the indyref, but I see no personal inconsistencies. There are critical differencies, in that the UK is a net contributor to EU budgets, and a net importer from EU suppliers, while the reverse was true of Scotland and the UK. Quite simply, UK has a far stronger negotiating hand than Scotland would have had.

    The other reason is political. Had Scotland voted yes, the UK would have broken up. Whatever happened next wouldn’t materially alter that simple fact – the rubicon would already have been crossed.

    Were UK to vote for Brexit, however, the EU still remains, as 27 states, but now under immense stress. The threat levels to the survival of the EU would become intense, while there remained much that EU proponents would want to defend. Avoiding Brexit, or at the very least managing it to avoid excess strain and stress, would remain very much in the EU’s interest. The UK would hold a strong hand.

    By contrast, the advent of iScotland would simply have meant rUK had to negotiate the most favourable deal for itself, with nothing further at stake.

  12. Alec
    If your argument is correct, you seem to be assuming that economic rationality would override politics. I would not bet on that happening, (e.g. Greece).

  13. Alec

    If your argument is correct, you seem to be assuming that economic rationality would override politics. I would not assume that happening, (e.g. Greece).

  14. ALEC

    @”I don’t, to be honest. As we are the world’s fifth largest economy and a net importer of goods from the EU, there will be very significant pressure from EU business to conclude a fair deal quickly. ”

    I think Outs will need some indication from EU that they would grant trade preference -and quickly-to a country which has just voted to leave the EU. I don’t see that coming frankly.

    I really do think that Cameron’s jibe about divorce will be telling.
    Threatening divorce in order to get a more favourable married relationship does run the risk of being told to sod off then.

    Anyway we will see if Gove can swing it for Outs. IDS won’t -he is a very poor speaker. And Boris has, in my view, blown it-the Mayor of Europe’s major financial centre advocating leaving the EU.

  15. After news of enhanced border control between Greec/Macedonia & Afghan migrants being barred from crossing comes this news :-

    “BORDER police have been deployed to the Franco-Belgian border amid fears migrants evicted from the Calais jungle could head to the Belgian coast to sneak into the UK.”

    Newsweek.

    I wonder if the steady collapse of Free Movement within EU will register on the radar of UK Referendum voters-and if so to what effect ?

  16. @Colin
    Article 50 says nothing specifically about trade relationships “favourable” or otherwise.
    Clearly tariffs are important, but failing prior agreement, after the 2 years ALL the terms of the Lisbon Treaty cease to apply, so that the leaving state can set its own rules on border controls, on whether and to what extent EU Directives enshrined in its laws could be repealed, how future trade negotiations should be conducted, who should have citizens’ rights in the leaving state, arrest warrants, etc etc. In the UK’s case, that would also mean UK representation on various global economic and political groups, rather than that being done via an EU representative.
    WTO rules on tariffs would still apply, but the leaving state after 2 years would have to (or ‘could’, depending on how you want to spin it) negotiate with the EU on the same footing as other states, of which only USA, China and Japan had greater GDPs on 2014 figures.
    From discussions about the Calais ‘Jungle’ it seems that there are agreements between EU states not covered by the Lisbon Treaty which would still stand.
    I am not clear what would happen if UK left EU and after the 2 year period offered a variety of tariff and other terms to some but not all of the remaining EU member states!? bearing in mind that the EU as a whole sells much more to us than we do to them, but these sales come mainly from only a few EU members.

  17. DAVE

    @”the leaving state after 2 years would have to (or ‘could’, depending on how you want to spin it) negotiate with the EU on the same footing as other states,”

    Exactly-provided the EU wished to do so. The EU would dictate the speed of these discussions.

    I have no idea what might result. Nor has anyone else-least of all those who will be campaigning to willingly & deliberately enter that process.

  18. @Colin – I think you are correct, int he sense that there are two points – what would actually happen after a Brexit vote and what the protagonists will say would happen after a Brexit vote – the two are markedly different.

    Given the circumstances, it’s daft to suggest a deal wouldn’t be struck within two years, but the question remains about what the terms would be. Ireland fo one will be pushing furiously for a reasonable deal, and I could imagine them stalling everything possible in the EU if others tried to prevent this.

    However, all sides will pretend a deal would be difficult/uncertain/longwinded etc, as neither the UK PM or anyone in Brussels wants to give the leave camp anything publicly to hold onto.

  19. @Colin 3.22pm
    “Threatening divorce in order to get a more favourable married relationship does run the risk of being told to sod off then.”
    That presumes that the aim is a more favourable married relationship. I don’t think most ‘outers’ want that. They want separation and to live apart, on good terms if possible.
    It may be more like the husband suggesting selling the 4 bedroom house and splitting the proceeds, while the wife keeps the children and he keeps both cars, as he needs them for his business.
    [Cameron’s jibe about divorce to my mind is just another indication of his naive negotiating abilities]

  20. I wish there was no ‘remain’ box on the ballot. The referendum would make more sense to me if the choices were ‘leave’ or ‘go all in’.

    I think the reason people are so wary in the UK is because we pay a fair share, but seem to have so little influence. It’s totally understandable though, because were really only ‘affiliated members’; the worst of both worlds (sort of like ‘out’ Norway, ironically). It wasn’t particularly strategic to turn away from The Commonwealth, ripping up a ton of special deals we had in the process, in exchange for a club we didn’t really want to join.
    If Britain had been forcing its way to the center over the years, nudging between France and Gernany at the table, who knows what might have happened. Perhaps the European Central Bank would be in London now and we would be desperately trying to save ‘our’ Euro rather than carping from the sidelines.
    Anyway, the UK will almost certainly be moving further and further ‘out’ from now on as the Eurozone inevitably pools more sovereignty. ‘Remain’ is not really what it says on the tin, in fact in a decade or so, I’d imagine it will look a lot like ‘leave’.

  21. ALEC

    @”However, all sides will pretend a deal would be difficult/uncertain/longwinded etc, as neither the UK PM or anyone in Brussels wants to give the leave camp anything publicly to hold onto.”

    Agreed-and this is the power of the Leap in the Dark charge-economic uncertainty for an indefinite period.

    Those seeking to minimise the problem cannot provide certainty.

    Those wishing to maximise it can sow all sorts of doubts :- Silence and/or dark hints from Brussels, Threats from Inward investors take their investment across the EU border etc etc

    DAVID

    I agree with your last para-when just UK & Denmark are EU members outside EZ one wonders how much DC’s red cards on “ever closer union” will actually mean. But thats for another day.

    I watched DC’s body language yesterday. I come to the conclusion that he feels pretty much as I do , and as you suggest many people do in UK: Increasing frustration ( a word he used a lot yesterday, one presumes as a result of direct experience in Brussels ) with the sclerotic decision making process of so many countries, and the EU’s institutional addiction to top down uniformity & one size fits all ( disparate economies) . ( I think Gove picks this up brilliantly in his piece-an analogue organisation in a digital world) .
    But he is a Eurosceptic- not a Europhobe because he sees , eg, the beneficial areas of cross border co-operation like security & policing . But I think that he genuinely believes that leaving would be, at a minimum, severely disruptive economically. And so he concludes that this is a marriage we cannot leave-at least just yet.

    And since he will be gone when the issue comes up again , his horizons are pretty short.

  22. @Colin
    ” The EU would dictate the speed of these discussions.”
    Why so? And why should they delay when they sell more to us than we sell to them, and some of what we sell to them might be sold to others, while some of what they sell to us we could make ourselves? Or even offer better terms to others outside the EU and buy from them? (Decent terms to African farmers, perhaps? Or Korean cars?)
    It would seem to me to be in the interests of both EU and UK to conclude such negotiations within the 2 year time frame. If what you suggest is true, the EU might offer no proposals during those 2 years? though they might find it hard to reach agreement among themselves as to what they might offer, as the members are a disparate lot now.
    I find it interesting that both sides talk about “UK trade with the EU” as though at present the UK were not in the EU. UK trade within the EU is largely what is sold on the UK home market.
    I tend to agree with Alec, but you are both quite right that no-one knows the result though some may have a vested interest in suggesting that a deal would be difficult. As I believe there are other countries in the EU which sell far more to China than we do, suppose it becomes necessary to consider the effect of adverse Chinese import tariffs during and after that 2 year period? Dumping steel is bad enough. What if Russia puts up gas prices drastically, or worse finds an alternative market in Asia?
    In short, I would argue that trying to base IN or OUT of EU on predictions of markets and tariffs in 2-3 years time is not sensible, while questions of where our laws are made, by whom, and can we influence them through the ballot box are fairly clear and less subject to the changing winds of fortune.
    And then there is migration to concern us all, whether UK is in EU or not.

  23. Alec,

    There is no double standard, neither Alex Salmond or Alisrair Darling could back up the “Guarantees they gave, because the Parlimants they led could just vote differently they couldn’t stop them.

    As to regional pensions, we have already seen discussions of regional benefits and indeed regional pay in places like the NHS, so there is no reason not to do it on pensions.

    As to Northern pensioners selling their £90k bungalows outside Gateshead and flooding to buy £300k bedsits in London for that extra £10 a week your grasp of economics is as poor as your grasp of politics.

    From a Tory perspective with a split that favoured those in the Tory voting South where most marginals and ex Libdem seats are, over the Labour North where they still, even with Corbyn, weigh the vote regional pensions offers a lot of attractions.

    Anyway on topic my money is still on stay but if we go, I have little doubt the EU’s price for “Free Trade” will be that the City of London has to adopt the kind of banking reforms that Osborne has been determined to resist.

    Peter.

  24. DAVE

    I am not trying to offer forecast of what would result from an Article 50 withdrawal in terms of our future trading relationship.

    What I am suggesting is :-

    It will probably be very slow-it always is with them because there are so many of them.
    It will produce economic uncertainty.
    The In camp will find it easy to maximise these risks to our economy.
    The Out camp will find it difficult to minimise them.

  25. Reading the discussion above (very good one – rather read this than the nonsense in the national newspapers), I wonder if there was a leave, would be a court order that the UK and continental Europe cannot be closer than a hundred miles, and then would Eurasia have to be pushed, or simply the rope be untied.

  26. I think there is a huge degree of naivety about what will drive EU27 negotiating positions in the event of a Brexit:
    – Article 50 is DESIGNED to be punitive to a leaving country; that is its whole point, to discourage an exit. It means what it says.
    – Any ‘favourable deal’ to the UK aft BREXIT is inconceivable; the internal politics of EU27 will not permit it. Offering the UK better terms than their own populations are seen to enjoy is as near a declaration of electoral suicide as it is possible to conceive. So it won’t happen.
    – even ignoring that reality, the UK will have just generated an enormous amount of stress, work and distraction for EU27 that they view as unnecessary and self-centred; most people in analogous situations don’t go out of their way to be generous – nor will they!
    – in regard to trade tariffs, EU27 will likely take the view that we, the British people, will still carry on buying Mercedes cars, Loire wines, Italian clothes and going on holiday to Spain and Greece; sure these things will cost us more due to export tariffs and a weaker pound, but exports to the UK won’t stop, just slow down a bit.
    – the intense political need to discourage other potential exits by showing just how unpleasant it can be will mean that the UK will be offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal, at best no better than Norway (freedom of movement unchanged, product standards unchanged,similar cost per head contribution).
    – In summary, we may genuinely believe that the EU have more to lose than us, we may even be factually correct, but we forget that the EU27 FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT and will act accordingly. And the process under Article 50 is structured deliberately to allow them to impose their view on the departing country.

  27. It does seem to me, that there are aspects that don’t necessarily get considered much.

    Like to me, it may be the case we do a bit better business-wise while in the EU, but it wouldn’t be catastrophic to be out. There would potentially be some gains, as we seem to play more by the open tendering rules than some others.

    But this is relatively marginal stuff. Seems to me that a longer term justification for the EU is to compete alongside the US, China and Russia etc.

    But of course, Japan does quite well. They have a bigger population though.

    If we want to have that kind of clout while remaining outside the EU, then we need to grow our population. Which is what we are doing.

    Thus in the longer term, EU membership may be less important.

  28. Ludlownewboy – 9.33 a.m.
    “It would be interesting to know how many Labour Party members are actually in minimum wage jobs of the sort that can be filled by EU immigrants. I suspect that those people do not have the time or money to indulge themselves in being members of any party.”

    Is it true to say, as some economists do, that a 5% unemployment is about the lowest it can get in a reasonably functioning economy? That is to say, is it true that there will always be some new people coming into the jobs market (school leavers, for example), and some between jobs and some coming back from sickness etc.?

    If 5% is about the lowest unemplyment can get, then any reduction in immigration will lead to shortages of people able (and perhaps willing!) to work. Those in the UK who are long-term unemployed are (according to some) obviously not employable.

    Of course, on the other hand, there are zero hours contracts, which may distort the real unemployment figures, and immigrants keep wage inflation under control.

    But as a mortgage payer I’m very happy with low interest rates – even if it also means that I only got a 1% pay rise this year.

    And as someone who believes in open borders wherever possible I am against restrictions on the free movement of people, whether in search of work or in search of a place in the sun to retire to….

    It’s a complex world…..

  29. “I am against restrictions on the free movement of people…”

    ——-

    Wot, even boomers at gigs??? You must have the patience of a saint, John…

  30. “even ignoring that reality, the UK will have just generated an enormous amount of stress, work and distraction for EU27 that they view as unnecessary and self-centred; most people in analogous situations don’t go out of their way to be generous – nor will they!”

    ——–

    Well there’s a question. Do the EU have a more punitive mindset in such affairs, or would they be more conciliatory?

    Have they given Cameron much? And would Greece, Italy etc. consider the EU’s economic actions in the wake of their difficulties conciliatory?

    And this is for peeps still IN the EU…

  31. That would be a useful polling question. In the wake of Brexit, do peeps think the EU would offer a more utopian settlement, extending every assistance in our disconnection? Or would they be rather more austere, pour encourager Les autres?

  32. Anyone else getting these tobacco escalator ads? Bit unnecessary as I gave up smoking last year. (I don’t think it showed…)

  33. Scottish and UK Governments have agreed the transition fiscal framework which will allow the Scotland Bill to proceed.

    Perhaps more importantly, the terms of the review process to be conducted by the next UK and Scottish Governments have been agreed.

    Manifestos can now be drawn up for May’s elections and, hopefully, attention in Scotland can concentrate on that – and not the endless reruns of the indyref being repeated in a different context.

  34. @BIGFATRON
    ” Article 50 is DESIGNED to be punitive to a leaving country; that is its whole point, to discourage an exit. It means what it says.”
    How so? Shorn of the clauses dealing with how to choose the EU negotiator, how to attain an EU majority decision, etc, which are all the mechanics of how the EU sets out to deal with the departing state, Article 50 reduces to:

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
    2…. the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

    I fail to see how that of itself precludes both parties seeking amicable departure.
    (I do see that may not result in some particular case, but that depends on what preceded departure, and on how the negotiations are handled, not on anything in Article 50 itself. If it is the intention of the EU to prevent the exit of a member state against its will, do you wish to stay in such a body?
    I don’t think it is true that the aim of article 50 is to prevent exit. In early drafts of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, there was no mechanism for exit. In the final agreed version there is the above simple one.)

    As for the dangers of exit, I could present ‘dangers of remaining’ at some considerable length, especially if I were allowed the same degree of speculation and departure from likelihood adopted by the ‘IN’ crowd.

    @COLIN
    “I am not trying to offer forecast of what would result from an Article 50 withdrawal in terms of our future trading relationship.”
    By which you mean, I take it, not predicting any actual factual outcomes – very wise, as these are difficult to foresee.
    But you then do make some predictions:

    “What I am suggesting is :-
    It will probably be very slow-it always is with them because there are so many of them.
    It will produce economic uncertainty.
    The In camp will find it easy to maximise these risks to our economy.
    The Out camp will find it difficult to minimise them.”

    In other words you are predicting unsubstantiated scare stories by and on behalf of a body ill-equipped to negotiate and take decisions effectively, which will lead to economic uncertainty which must be detrimental to both trading partners in any future arrangements both with each other and in their relations with third countries.
    Once the 2 year period has expired, the UK would be out of the EU, and thus a “third country”. The EU has rules within the Lisbon Treaty dealing with how relations with ‘third countries’ must be conducted. In general these are intended to lead amicably to mutual benefit.
    It might be that they would have to be conducted by persons not ‘tainted’ by the discussions prior to exit.

  35. @Peter Cairns

    “Anyway on topic my money is still on stay but if we go, I have little doubt the EU’s price for “Free Trade” will be that the City of London has to adopt the kind of banking reforms that Osborne has been determined to resist.”

    ——–

    If Scotland were to negotiate being in the EU following leaving the UK, would they successfully resist the imposition of these banking reforms on their own banks?

  36. @Dave

    “In early drafts of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, there was no mechanism for exit. In the final agreed version there is the above simple one.)”

    And yet Greenland left in 1985. Where there is a will there is always a way. Art.50 TFEU is just a structured mechanism for the process of withdrawal.

    I would conclude, however, that @BIGFATRON is largely correct. It’s not so much that the process set out in Art 50 TFEU is designed to Force MS’s to stay, it’s more that the politics of any MS departing the fold will necessitate an adversarial response from rEU as they seek to protect the remaining Union. There is no way the UK will get anything approaching the Norwegian solution.

  37. DAVE

    @”In other words you are predicting unsubstantiated scare stories”

    Yes-in response to unsubstantiated “no problem” stories.

  38. @Dave

    I think you illustrate my point about naivety very nicely… I’m not interested in scaremongering, nor in whether what EU27 might do is fair; I am describing what I actually expect to happen, since I personally expect the vote to be marginally ‘Out’.

    Article 50 gives every single member of EU27 a direct veto over most of the terms which will apply to a departing country on exit.

    There is no incentive whatsoever for countries to give way on their key points – it is bizarre to think they will surrender hard fought principles at that point when they have steadfastly resisted doing so up until that point.

    Countries for which free movement is key (Poland, Romania) will absolutely not surrender on that point; countries that have tried repeatedly to equalise the importance of continental financial centres with London (France, Germany) won’t forego the open opportunity; and none of the EU27 will relax the EU product standards an inch for the UK.

    Neither Switzerland nor Norway have made any progress on these points, and both were negotiating from a relatively friendly and benign initial relationship – what makes the UK so special that it would be treated so differently?

    Look at the reaction when the Swiss voted to slow down free movement – expelled from Erasmus student programs, shared research programs, all sorts of trade issues. It’s not pretty.

    Which of the standard requirements – cash contribution, adherence to free movement, adherence to product standards – do you think they would give way on, and why? I just can’t see it…

  39. CARFREW,

    Why would we? ..We don’t want Giant Banks too big to fail to crash the economy again!

    Peter

  40. BMG have published data tables for the Evening Standard BoJo question on EUref.

    Not at all clear how they asked questions, so of little interest – at least to those of us interested in polling.

    http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/boris-effect-eu-referendum/

  41. @Bigfatron – “Article 50 gives every single member of EU27 a direct veto over most of the terms which will apply to a departing country on exit. ”

    No it doesn’t. It needs qmv, which means up to 15 states could vote against and a deal could still be passed. It’s much, much easier without unanimity.

  42. @Peter Cairns

    You’re ducking my question, lol. Once again. Bit ironic since in the past you accused me of dodging a question when I didn’t. A question which simply showed that the criticism you applied to UK would also likely apply to Scotland too.

    That you’ve decided it’s a wonderful thing in Scotland’s case is a separate thing.

  43. @Peter Cairns

    In any event, regarding the question “why would we”, you are ignoring the competitive advantage accruing from avoiding the EU interventions. And are you saying everyone in Scotland would back you in not wanting them? Who are you including in this “we”?

  44. @Peter Cairns

    In addition, you have not established that the EU interventions will indeed stop another banking crisis, or weighed them against other ways of stopping or mitigating such a crisis…

  45. “The Labour party membership is increasingly in line with the views of their leader. 68% of Labour members opose renewal of Trident, 64% think trade unions should have more influence, 58% say they wouldn’t vote for any Labour leader if they had supported airstrikes against Syria.”

    This must be a bitter pill for Hilary to swallow…maybe he should lead the 25% of Labour MPs who voted to bomb Syria to cross the floor, and join the Tories, where they belong, because their future in the current Labour Party doesn’t look too bright.

  46. Labour members are overwhelmingly AGAINST trident renewal and think that trade unions (who are largely FOR Trident renewal) should have more influence. That might not work out.

1 2