Ipsos MORI’s telephone poll for the Standard is out and now also shows Leave ahead. Topline figures are LEAVE 53%, REMAIN 47% among likely voters. On paper this is a huge shift – MORI’s previous poll had an eighteen point lead for Remain among all voters (which was the headline figure reported), and would have had a fourteen point Remain lead among likely voters. Part of the difference is methodology change, MORI are now accounting for turnout and have started weighting by education (Ben Page suggests this boosted Leave by three points) but even accounting for that it is still another poll showing a hefty movement towards Leave.

Since the beginning of June all of the polls released have shown the horserace somewhere between a tight race and a clear Leave lead. The last polls to show clear Remain leads were ORB and Survation back at the end of May – ORB now have the race neck-and-neck, Survation have a poll out later today which I’d expect to echo other companies in showing a shift towards Leave.


882 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – LEAVE 53%, REMAIN 47%”

1 15 16 17 18
  1. Spectator for Leave.

    The Times for Remain.

    ………….and still they desperately try to pin responsibility for the murder on the Leave campaign. A sickening piece this morning by James O’Brien on LBC is typical -completely omitting mention , of course, of the stream of “fear” stories unleashed by the Remain side.

    What a cesspool this Referendum campaign has become.

    Hope AW doesn’t object this link-thanks.

    https://www.gofundme.com/jocox

  2. Just watching Sky news, lots of politicians talking about how politics has gone poisonous in the wake of the dreadful events, etc, but what I don’t like, and it’s actually sort of horribly hypocritical, is that there seems to be an undertone of some of them subtlety trying to link this to the referendum and their desired outcome, which actually defeats the entire point they are all making, and if anything just drags us lower still. Anybody picking up on this? Where is the line between genuine and opportunistic.

  3. SOMERJOHN

    That’s just your opinion.

    DANNY

    All of that could equally be said of the remain campaign. Both Remain and leave have conducted truly awful campaigns.

  4. I’m voting leave as I believe Britain always has been semi-detached, obstructive and self-interested in its attitude to the EU – case in point is rebate, Schengen and the Euro. For “better or for worse” is not our outlook towards the EU.

    I think the EU will thrive without us, and implement the needed political and financial integration and discipline required to make the Euro work.

    Despite our exit (be that the case or not), I believe we will continue to have a very productive trading relationship with the EU. Expect a token bloody nose for us though once we say we’re leaving.

    Will it do anything to address migration? Possibly Britain will reduce immigration for a short period of time, but we will still have net immigration whether we’re in or out.

  5. A 4% boost to the remain campaign from the Jo Cox murder will take the final result to 56% remain, 44% leave. Any trauma will influence the electorate to trend towards the status quo, it’s not anything to do with what anyone in the remain and leave camps are saying.

  6. Assiduosity

    You seem to be implying that leaving the EU is somehow synonymous with rejecting the principles of the ECHR. It is not. The UK signed up to the ECHR in 1950, long before the (then) EEC, later EU, began to be established, and will remain a signatory whatever the outcome of the referendum, just as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are signed up. We’ve even incorporated its Articles in the Human Rights Act 1998, and while there is talk of some kind of modification of that, the fundamental rights won’t disappear.

    But the biggest issue for me, as a second year Law student (mature student at the OU), is the insidious erosion of our legal system if we remain in the EU. Those of us in, or aspiring to be part of, a legal profession who care about the UK’s common law system should view this as an opportunity to put a stop to a worrying trend.

    All of the other EU member states, with the exception of the ROI, have a civil law system in place. This means that everything is codified, and Judges generally do not engage in legal interpretation, or listen to conflicting arguments from opposing counsel, it is an inquisitorial system where the Judge’s role is simply to determine the facts, and apply the relevant law. A bit like looking up a railway timetable.

    Our common law system, developed over hundreds of years since Magna Carta and beyond, relies on Judges to interpret and declare what the law is, with landmark cases along the way to create precedents. This system has been copied in countries which are, or were, part of the Commonwealth or Empire, and can be said to be the system of law on which the sun never sets. Each new statute enacted by Parliament, can be likened to a ship sailing from Southampton to New York, which picks up barnacles and minor leaks along the way, and these are then put right when it reaches the dock. (Some bad bits of legislation hit icebergs, just like the Titanic).

    But, our membership of the EU has meant that all of their Regulations automatically become part of EU law, and the Directives have to be implemented by our Parliament within two years. A staggering number – something like 2,000 to 3,000 a year – of these missives emanate from Brussels annually, covering such essential aspects of life as the maximum degrees of curvature allowable on bananas, to the material from which driving licences must be made. This creeping and insidious undermining of our common law has to stop – if we continue down this path we will have, by default, a civil law system exactly like Germany, Spain, or Serbia.

    We need to use this opportunity to tell Ms Merkel and her cronies nein, enough is enough, we don’t want any more of your silly laws thank you, and we’d like to re-establish the supremacy of Parliament and the Supreme Court. That’s why I shall be voting LEAVE on June 23.

  7. RICH

    Absolutely.

    THOUGHTFUL

    Agree with your last para so much-preachy, screamy & censorious; with weasel words they accuse Leave supports-particularly UKIP-of racist zenophobia which was responsible for driving the murderer to do what he did.

    Leaving aside the arguments against this covert smear, they fail utterly to understand that 4 million people voted for UKIP, having left Labour & Con because they are sick & tired of being told that their concerns & fears are simply not acceptable to the main parties .

    And if more than 50% of the UK electorate vote Leave in this Referendum-they will still not understand that it is they who are responsible for the alienation & cynicism which took us out of the Club that this self proclaimed intelligentsia insisted was good for us all-whether we liked it or not.

  8. David Cameron could undermine the Jo Cox swing towards remain but having to keep his trap shut for 4 days will keep him in check. Remain basically need to stop campaigning now and let leave bask in the dubious post traumatic light. The moratorium on campaigning is a damn good move for remain.

  9. I’ll reserve judgement on poll impacts until I see a post events poll. The only one so far is an odd US one that showed a big swing to leave. Didn’t really feel right. Remain had do spired to squander an 18 point lead, so them not doing anything is probably a good thing for remain. Am not convinced now it’s going to change the polls just speaki to people. Nobody I know has changed their minds based on this.

  10. @Alec

    Lol, been a while since you tried to tell me to be quiet!! Anyways, we only mentioned Laszlo again to consider any possible confusion; for the greater part we are discussing empathy etc. because it’s interesting and more important than perhaps is sometimes appreciated…

    Like, objectification and the relationship to the issue of immigration etc.

  11. Lots of positive campaigning in the days ahead by remain, though their leading protagonists will have to maintain a respectful silence, so await much popular posting of European flags and that busking orchestra surprise performance of ode to joy in some unsuspecting town square.

  12. @Danny
    In a 2-party system it is very unlikely, and in a multi-party system even less likely, that the ruling party will have the support of the majority of the electorate.
    See General elections of 1945, 1951-1959 where the governing party (Labour in 1945, Conservative in the fifties) obtained 48-49% of the vote, but with turnouts of >70 and sometimes >80%. [ In 1951 Labour actually got marginally more votes, but 17 fewer seats. Still a Tory overall majority]
    Both in that 2-party system and with PR of some form, what you actually get is government by the party acceptable to the largest minority. With the more likely result of coalitions under PR, then there is control by the party acceptable to the largest minority, somewhat restrained by some other party supported by a small minority of the electorate – certainly smaller than the main opposition. It seems to me that then it is very likely that no-one is satisfied.

    The main problem with the EU is not whether the resulting government is representative of the majority but that it is inherently inefficient and slow to take decisions, and so more likely to be overtaken by “events, dear boy, events”.
    You also need to ask whether the desires of the majority are achievable, or even really desirable. I guess when the Referendum result is known, over half the population will say (for different reasons) that it is the wrong one, especially if turnout is low.

  13. Colin

    Having watched some of the campaign from Sweden where I’m visiting my sons who live here I can only agree with you I sit firmly in the remain camp not only on economic grounds but having children and grand children who live in Sweden I support the idea of people being part of a larger family of nations.

    I also would be the first to say the EU is far from perfect and changes have to happen especially in the realms of immigration I’m returning to the US in a couple of days hope all is well with you and your family I’m still involved in farming all be it part-time Texas is a great place full of people who have extended a very friendly welcome to this immigrant.

  14. @colin,

    The problem with James O’Brien, is he has for a long time, very eloquently put how you can’t blame all people, races or religions for one event, I.e. Blaming Muslims for ISIS or the Charlie Hebro attacks. And for this he is absolutely spot on.

    Yet now he seems to be doing the opposite and trying to link this one attack with half the people in Britain. It just seems to undermine all his previous points?

  15. The highly regarded expert Prof Fisher (Elections etc.) on June 14th cut his predicted forecast share of the vote for Remain from 53.8% to 52.7%.

  16. I find it quite disturbing that quite a few people are proposing changing their vote because a man with serious mental health problems going back many years has murdered a woman for unknown reasons. Who knows what they are, but they are unlikely to be rational.

  17. A fresh poll from the highly regarded BMG group, using well-thought-of telephone polling methods, has placed REMAIN on 53.3%.

    This will encourage many REMAIN supporters.

  18. @Dave

    I think they would have changed their vote anyway. The killing of one person is just a useful hook in the narrative.

  19. @ Dave

    Completely agree, they can’t rationally explain making a once in a lifetime decision that affects 65,000,000 people by basing it a once in a lifetime tragedy.

  20. @ David Carrod

    “You seem to be implying that leaving the EU is somehow synonymous with rejecting the principles of the ECHR. It is not. The UK signed up to the ECHR in 1950, long before the (then) EEC, later EU, began to be established, and will remain a signatory whatever the outcome of the referendum, just as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are signed up.”

    Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    As I hope I made clear, I fully recognise that the ECHR mechanisms and EU are separate entities. However, those leading the campaign for departure from the European Union have made it abundantly clear that they see ultimate withdrawal or some kind of ‘redefinition’ of our relationship with the ECHR as their goal.

    The current government’s policy is repeal of the Human Rights Act and replacement with a ‘British Bill of Rights’ and – so far as it is possible to assess from their extremely convoluted public statements on the matter – the assertion of the primacy of this Bill of Rights over their obligations to the ECHR. This is, of course, incompatible with the notion of a binding international treaty.

    As such, I would conclude that they are de facto proposing some kind of removal of the UK from the European Court’s domain. As I hope I made equally clear, I regard not only the principles of the ECHR, but the right of appeal to the Court as being crucial to its operation.

    It is the supra-national function of human rights justice that is the convention’s cornerstone.

    The role of the EU is that it has made ECHR membership and compliance a condition for new members and it is implied that existing members should also meet the same standards. It is this quandary, which might have led to the ECJ becoming involved that has probably caused the delay in moving forward with the UK Bill of Rights.

    Given all the above, I would contest that the EU and ECHR are not so separate as institutions or concepts as they are often portrayed in a practical sense.

    Your point on jurisprudence as opposed to codified law is a valid one. It is in the first instance worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights, designed as it was principally by lawyers in the English tradition, does rely heavily on precedent, judicial interpretation and flexibility.

    Secondly, though the legal systems of the bulk of Europe do follow the Roman or French model of codification, a notable exception is the constitutional courts of those countries, which generally bear a remarkable similarity to the our own system and the workings of the Supreme Court.

    On criminal and general civil law, it is possible for a polity to survive with markedly different systems co-existing over the long term. The UK i just such an example, with English, Scottish and Northern Irish law all being different in their own ways.

  21. @ProfHoward yes that’s probably about the position at the moment. The break for the status quo has already begun, and much of the narrative will now be around Jo Cox. Remain will end up at at least 56%. Indeed such reports are time lagging so there might even be a last minute push for 60% remain on the day.

  22. TOH: ” some of those on the remain side have reached the absolute bottom of the pit.”

    Examples? If you mean those relating the murder of Jo Cox to the prominence of immigration in the leave campaign, then that strikes me as a pretty shallow pit. The alternative explanation – that the timing of the murder is coincidental – is becoming less tenable by the hour.

    On the other hand, the Daily Mail a couple of days ago devoted the whole of its front page to:

    “As politicians squabble over border controls, yet another lorry load of migrants arriving in the UK declaring … WE’RE FROM EUROPE – LET US IN!”

    Followed the next day by a correction in small type at the bottom of page 2:

    “In common with other newspapers, we published a reputable news agency’s story which said that stowaways intercepted in east London had told police that they were ‘from Europe’,” it said.

    “In fact, while they had travelled to the UK in an Italian vehicle from mainland Europe, the migrants told police they were from Iraq and Kuwait.”

    So, not their fault they didn’t check the facts. And the Sun ran the same story, so that’s all right then.

    That cynical and knowingly unjustified linkage of Europe and Immigrants in a screaming headline, followed by an inconspicuous, weasel-worded retraction, strikes me as a much better example of a campaign that has “reached the absolute bottom of the pit.”

    Goebbels would have been delighted by the Mail. As he was in the 1930s – the era of a Europe of separate nations to which you appear to wish to return.

  23. TURK

    Thanks

    So nice to hear from you again. Sounds as if you are very content with life over there.

    All the best.

    RICH

    Yes-I was thinking the same thing.

    But his desperation left him little option but to expose his own hypocrisy.

  24. To say ‘death to traitors, freedom for Britain’ there can be few doubts about this individual’s motivation now.

    I do wonder whether postponing this referendum is the best course of action now.

  25. RICH

    Ignore him-beneath contempt.

  26. To summarise, there is in reality no way that one murder can swing an electorate. Therefore there can be only one reason why the establishment had consented to the suspension of campaigning: because they know it is all over. Remain is not only over the line already, as Prof Howard has reported. The Remain vote is now in the process of consolidating and adding new numbers on a daily basis. The final boost will be on Referendum Day. 53% Remain is already far to low an estimate.

  27. Colin/Rich

    I am not tarring the whole Brexit campaign, just certain elements of it.

    Cut the straw man nonsense.

  28. @exactprediction,

    I now understand where your name comes from, every one of your posts is exactly the same.

  29. @ EXACTPREDICTION

    I agree with your conclusion of the result, but disagree as to your reasoning.

    This referendum has become tainted and it’s probably in everyone’s best interest that it is postponed and any returned postal votes incinerated.

    Reschedule the thing for 2018.

  30. SOMERJOHN

    John O’Brien is a good example as is Hawthorn here.
    You have clearly not read my posts, I think both campaigns have been truly awful and I include both the Guardian and the Daily Mail as examples of much totally biased reporting although both also have had some good pieces.

  31. @exactprediction

    ‘The Establishment’ is a bunch of MPs who could have easily been the victim and who just lost a colleague. The campaigning is ending because no one wants to be the sole voice campaigning whilst details come out.

    Not to mention now he has confirmed his political motivation, the Brexit campaigners are not going to want to talk about sovereignty claims or immigration.

    At the same time you do make me ponder one thing – the big Remain push was likely for postal votes and we’ve seen the size of their importance VS on the day in recent years.

  32. @ JonesinBangor

    By then we might a European army to worry about!

  33. RICH

    I draw your attention to todays proceeding at Westminster Magistrates.

    I think James O’Brien has a point. This matter is now subjudice, so will not enter into a discussion.

    Politics in this country and elsewhere has become toxic, with Politicians and media playing a game without thinking of the consequences.

    I just wonder what polling might reveal about the current public opinion on politicians might be. I should imagine it would be pretty negative and confusing.

  34. I do agree that all the momentum for leave that was happening will have totally gone now. No doubt.

  35. @ Exactprediction

    Expect a message on UKPR from me on Friday when Leave have won. I’ll be in Capri so it might be in Italian.

  36. TOH

    So Hawthorn’s posts have reached “the absolute bottom of the pit,” have they?

    As I said, it must be a pretty shallow pit. His posts seem to me a model of civility and rationality compared with much coming from your side, like “Ignore him-beneath contempt.”

  37. No one here, I think, would wish to tar all those who hold legitimate views over Britain’s future in or out of the European Union with responsibility for the alleged murderous actions of an individual.

    However, in light of the public statement made in court by the accused this morning, could we please stop the constant attempts to portray him as having nothing to do with a set of extreme, vile and violent political positions.

    It’s vulgar, disrespectful and quite frankly demeaning of both those who do it and the victim.

    We will have to wait now for the process of investigation to discover what other factors were at work in this case. It may be that he had a long history of mental health problems, but I hope I am not alone in a sense of unease in jumping to the conclusion that this was the cause of the crime. Many people who suffer from mental distress throughout their lives are law abiding and valuable members of the community.

    He has spoken, surely that should be an end of it for now.

  38. Leave may weaponise this in the same way some on remain seem to be doing i.e. that some in remain are saying that anyone who is worried about immigration or wants to leave the EU is complicit in the murder and is a racist. If they do this, not sure it would sit well with the electorate!

  39. @Jonesinbangor

    And what happens in 2018 if there is another assassination? This could go on for ever.

  40. SOMERJOHN

    We don;t agree.

  41. That’s why I think remain should be careful in what they imply. If they try to gain too much political capital from this, it may make them look like the aggressive and nasty side and risk alienating a significant proportion of the British electorate. It may also play into Farage’s hands.

  42. Motivation to vote could decide this. People who are mildly pro EU or neutral are not as motivated as those who will vote leave.

    I think there could be less than 100k votes in it and it won’t provide a mandate to MP’s or Lords to back a change to UK relationship with the EU. Therefore Cameron won’t start negotiation to exit the EU and there will be a lot of very unhappy Tories.

  43. All the idiots who would carry out these horrendous crimes will still be here after Thursday. Nothing will have changed.

  44. Ambivalentsupporter: “That’s why I think remain should be careful in what they imply.”

    I don’t think there’s much implying going on. People are drawing their own conclusions.

  45. This was a political assassination, end of.

  46. @Somerjohn,

    Obviously you haven’t read the Guardian and seen some MP’s comments. Or been reading this thread.

  47. @ David Carrod’s reply to Assiduosity
    I was considerring a reply on these lines, but no longer need to write it. I too was a mature law student back around 1980, studying constitutional and commercial law, which included one of the earliest courses on European law. The different philosophies behind English law and EU law were very marked (Scots law is more akin to EU approach) .
    Prior to those studies, my job meant that I had to read the titles of all the EEC Directives and Regulations in the EEC daily Official Journal, and the texts of those relevant to the industry I worked for. That alone put me off the EEC for life.

    It is worth looking around the world at those nations which have inherited the English legal system and the associated views on democracy from the days of the British Empire: USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan (modified by being a Moslem people), Malaya, Singapore and many African countries (some of which are on longer democracies). Other European countries had empires in the 19th century, but which of them have handed on a democratic heritage to their ex-colonies?

    Assiduosity wrote of peace in Europe. Taking the long view, Napoleon’s hegemony of Europe resulted in and was overcome by warfare. In the two centuries since, we have had the Franco-Prussian War and conflict in the 20th century between Germany and its neighbours.
    (WWI was ended by the Treaty of Versailles – described by Foch as “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years”. His words proved prophetic: the Second World War started twenty years and 64 days later.
    Since 1800 Russia was attacked by Napoleon, and twice by Germany, but engaged in frequent conflict with Turkey (losing to an alliance of Turkey France and Britain in the Crimea) and lost its navy to Japan in 1904

    For most of the time from 1945 to 2000, war between Western European states was inhibited not I suggest by the existence of the EEC (the EU postdating that period) but by NATO – which actually meant by fear of invasion by a nuclear-armed superpower, the USSR. As Assiduosity said ” NATO is a guard against shared external threat, not a guarantee of peace between allied nations”
    The guarantee was in truth that the USSR empire would be extended west from East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary if the others squabbled amongst ourselves – though France was not a full member of Nato for 43 years after 1966.

  48. Assid
    I thought your earlier post about your reasons for being in favour of the EU was the best I’ve ever seen. I don’t agree with all your reasoning, but it made even me pause for thought and it was quite inspiring in its own way. If Remain had taken a positive line like that they may well have won comfortably (which of course they still may). It made far better reading than stuff like ‘air fares will go up by exactly £230′.

    I take a different view because I believe that the UK is a great country which can make it’s own way in the world, and that the people have the right to kick out the government whenever there is an election. We can’t do that in the EU. We are quite capable of negotiating international agreements on security, trade, policing, or whatever else is necessary without being governed by people we cannot remove. The Westminster parliament is now little more than a glorified county council with it’s own army. Our parliamentary system is not perfect of course, but it is in the peoples’ power to vote for a party to reform it by abolishing the House of Lords for instance, or making it an elected house.

    I wasn’t going to write an essay, but it seems to have become the trend. Anyway on polling I agree that momentum has stopped for Leave but the result could still be close.

  49. I think the recent horrible events will affect the result in two ways:

    1) I think some will vote in sympathy of the views of the murdered MP (I have seen only women put this view forwards, incidentally)
    2) Some will vote remain because they don’t want to be on the same side as Farage and his unpleasant views.

    I think it will be enough to put Remain at around 55% of the vote and a clear victory. I’m never close with these forecasts, though, so don’t trust me!

1 15 16 17 18