ICM have a new poll in the Sun on Sunday with topline figures of CON 39%(+1), LAB 29%(-1), LDEM 9%(+1), UKIP 14%(-1), GRN 4%(nc). This is the first poll conducted since Theresa May became Prime Minister, so may be expected to show a typical “new leader” bounce in government support (when Brown took over in 2007 and Major took over in 1990 the governing party went from being behind to having double-digit leads). The Tory lead is up a little, but not outside the normal margin of error, that said ICM’s previous poll already had an eight point Tory lead, so they were already at a high base.

ICM also did some hypothetical voting intention questions asking about varous leader match-ups. A control question, asking how people would vote if Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn were still leader at the general election has voting intention figures of CON 43%, LAB 28%, suggesting either a significant positive effect from mentioning May or a negative effect from mentioning Corbyn.

Asking how people would vote if Owen Smith or Angela Eagle were Labour leader does not offer any improvement. With Eagle the figures would be CON 43%, LAB 26%. With Smith the figures would be CON 42%, LAB 27%. I should add a heavy caveat here – hypothetical polls like this are popular in advance of leadership elections, but how useful they are is a different question. Respondents don’t necessarily know what the alternative candidates stand for, what they will do or announce, how they may or may not change the party. I add those caveats when the alternative leaders are well known to the public, like Gordon Brown, Boris Johnson and so on. In the case of someone who is as unknown to the general public as Owen Smith, I expect most don’t know who he is or what he even looks like. Nevertheless, the figures will be influential in the debate – rightly or wrongly Corbyn’s supporters within the Labour party will now be able to say there is no polling evidence that his rivals would do any better.

Note that ComRes also have a poll in the Independent/Sunday Mirror, but they are not currently publishing any voting intention figures while they review methods.


481 Responses to “ICM/Sun on Sunday – CON 39, LAB 29, LD 9, UKIP 14”

1 4 5 6 7 8 10
  1. @David carrod

    1. How have you calculated the need to double Scotland’s Civil Service as many of the functions of the state are already devolved and being further devolved? And Scotland pays towards the cost of those that are not.

    2. Could you link to the source of your “£35bn subsidy” figure or explain how it is calculated? The most recent estimates of Scotland`s current fiscal deficit – and it is not easy to assess it accurately – is of the order of £15bn per annum.

    3. ‘re France and Spain, this has already been discussed at some length on this site in previous threads and is actually more complex and less insurmountable than you wish it to be. But in any event if the UK can survive and prosper outside the EU as you think why shouldn’t Scotland?

    Interestingly for a Brexiteer you seem to think that the UK (by which you probably mean England) will benefit greatly by taking back control from the EU (despite the UK’s current difficult public finances and trade deficit) by creating a different future for itself but Scotland cannot do the same. This is despite Scotland having a good diversified economy ( best GVA per capita in the UK after London and SE England excluding NS oil), a highly educated population, the infrastructure of an independent state largely in place, a friendly neighbour dedicated to free trade to the south, other strong and friendly international connections and so on.

    So yes the burden of proof does really rest on you to explain why Scotland of all the medium sized nations on earth could not be successful.

  2. TANCRED
    @DAVID CARROD
    “I see you are spouting your hysterical nonsense once again”
    _________

    Anthony Wells…Any chance you can put this poster into moderation? Most of us and especially me do go beyond the comments policy at times but this poster just appears to be pure argumentative to other contributors and its’s by no means the first time he\she has been flagged up, at least half a dozen other posters told him/her off about their conduct on one forum alone.,

  3. The Scottish currency / indyref2 issues are interesting, in so far that we have heard comments (in media / political circles) to the effect of:

    – You have no plan
    – What plan you have is unworkable
    – Even if you do have a workable plan it will be vetoed

    This tells me that those out there saying these things:

    – Have no imagination
    – What imagination they have is confined within their own small sphere of existence
    – Even if they can imagine beyond said sphere, the imaginings are preordained to be negative

    Or it says that the political / media machine is being motivated by a fear of what will come. Some fear of an English-speaking nation on England’s border that England does not control? Some competitor to England on some business/tax matters?

    I have long held the view that it would be better to be in competition with Westminster / London / England, than be reliant on the scraps from its table, dished out by politicians with little support from its voters.

    Scotland is usually 3rd in the ‘regional’ GDP per head rankings, after London and the South East. And yet it is always referred to as some financial basketcase / blackhole. That’s right. Scotland is more wealthy per head than the East of England, or the South West of England, and yet Westminster MPs do not remove Barnet and share out more to these more ‘politically loyal’ areas.

    Why? There has to be a reason. Do some research folks. It can’t be sentiment, as there’s no such thing in politics when it gets in the way of profit / power.

  4. A lot of comments here about Scottish independence used to be made in the 1920s when Ireland became independent. Scotland can start its own currency – it does not have to continue with the Pound Sterling. The Scottish economy has its vulnerabilities but it’s still a lot stronger than the Irish one when that country opted for independence some 100 years ago. If Ireland survived, so can Scotland. I’m not Scottish, but if I was I would unhesitatingly support independence, given the mess that England has put the rest of the UK in.

  5. @barbazenzero – agreed, but I was more interested in the realpolitik of what the EU will expect of Scotland and how they can convince that they are committed to the Euro, which I suspect may be important in setting the scene for Scotland’s staying/re-entering the EU. I do, however, accept that this whole issue is complex, ill defined and flexible.

    The real question is actually why would Scotland want to join the Euro, and if it doesn’t, what other realistic options are there. You studiously avoided that part of my question!

  6. @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “Anthony Wells…Any chance you can put this poster into moderation? Most of us and especially me do go beyond the comments policy at times but this poster just appears to be pure argumentative to other contributors and its’s by no means the first time he\she has been flagged up, at least half a dozen other posters told him/her off about their conduct on one forum alone.”

    Oh yes – resort to censorship for anyone who disagrees robustly with your views! This is your admittance of being in the wrong – thank you for that. You are clearly not able to respond to my arguments – other than asking for censorship to protect your views. Speaks for itself.

  7. Barbazenzero

    Thanks for the link to that briefing. It’s mostly a very clear summary.

    One of my quibbles would be with implication that PC is pro-independence, as that’s not my understanding of their current position. He’s been careful to talk about an ‘independence movement’ but I think that’s still a bit problematic. If the reference really is to an extra-parliamentary movement I think the term ‘nationalist’ would be more appropriate.

    It’s interesting that he’s more cautious than some have been about how a unilateral declaration of independence would be received if Westminster refused a second referendum on the grounds that 2014 had been described as a ‘once a generation’ choice. But consistent with the emphasis on respect for other countries’ constitutional arrangements. As I noted on a previous thread the UK is a devolved state rather than a federal state.

    It’s clearer and clearer however that successive SNP administrations have been doing a very good job of highlighting the extent to which Scotland is a separate polity.

    The other interesting point is that although he briefly notes the problems of having a rUK outside the EU and NI and Scotland potentially inside the EU he doesn’t discuss ways this kind of situation might be handled. I hope somebody is doing some thinking about that and would be very interested to read it. One of the best ‘foreign interventions’ I read during the campaign was Enda Kenny’s analysis of the problems a UK exit would cause for Ireland and for British-Irish relations.

  8. Referendum procedures
    Probably not feasible, but perhaps it would have resulted in greater understanding of the issues if we’d structured our referendum like NZ did its flag referenda. They had a first vote to select the most preferred alternative to the existing flag (we’d have had flavours of Brexit) and then a second, run-off referendum between the top choice alternative and the existing flag. I guess the argument for structuring it that way, rather than just using single-stage preferential voting, is that to succeed the change option has be more popular than the status quo.

  9. Alec
    @barbazenzero – agreed, but I was more interested in the realpolitik of what the EU will expect of Scotland and how they can convince that they are committed to the Euro, which I suspect may be important in setting the scene for Scotland’s staying/re-entering the EU. I do, however, accept that this whole issue is complex, ill defined and flexible.

    Agreed. I do think if the UK leaves there will be much less interest in ensuring that EU membership makes sense for countries outside the Euro.

  10. JAYBLANC
    @Allan Christie

    I absolutely agree with Brexit it flings up an entirely new dimension to the Scottish question but I’m just heartened by all the new friends Nicola Sturgeon has down here, she’s in good hands.

    Both the UK and Scottish govs will need to sit down and work out how Scotland is not financially disadvantaged by Brexit if that is the case.
    ………
    “Meanwhile, surely the principle argument in support of Brexit, regaining sovereignty from a government with a democratic deficit, must hold true? Or are we talking Federalisation and full Lord Reform, as a result of Brexit too?”
    _____

    Give me a vote on a federal UK and I’ll vote for it. I think it’s the only way we can have a UK that works in the best interests of all the constituent nations.

  11. @Jayblanc – fully agree with your post on the disfinctionality of the Corbyn regime. This is what many of the closed ears/eyes/minds Corbynites just don’t get, in their rush to turn this into some kind of victimization of a kindly, ethically pure radical who ‘standing up to the man’ and being beaten down by the corrupted weight of the establishment.

    The truth of the matter isn’t that Corbyn’s politics are a disaster – they aren’t to everyone’s tastes, possibly not the majority, but there is enough there to gather some level of public support – it’s that he and McConnel are simply dreadful at the task of managing a party machine. Utterly, utterly useless. That is what is hurting potential Labour supporters like me.

    Personally, and completely without any knowledge other than a bried BBC news item, my first impressions are the Own Smith looks the part. In a thirty second slot he got across the intended message, at an event that looked good to potential voters which came across well. He may, for all I know, be a complete numpty, but he has done more in 30 seconds that Corbyn has managed in ten months.

    I’m also wondering why Corbyn can’t just wind his neck in and think a little about his party, and do what Thornberry is calling for in today’s Trident vote. It’s a pointless, jumped up vote by the outgoing PM, designed totally to embarrass Labour, and yet Corbyn walks straight in there and goes against his parties policy instead of going sunbathing or doing something useful with the day.

    Incompetant through and through, and I await news of my eligibility to vote with interest.

  12. TANCRED
    @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “Oh yes – resort to censorship for anyone who disagrees robustly with your views! This is your admittance of being in the wrong – thank you for that. You are clearly not able to respond to my arguments – other than asking for censorship to protect your views. Speaks for itself”
    _________

    Huh? What arguments did you put to me? Actually don’t bother answering that. DAVID C who you posted to in your rude response …I also disagreed with part of one his comments but engaged in grown up manner,

    Another poster who I disagreed with JAYBLANC… my response to him wasn’t rude and it’s not about who is right or wrong it’s about your conduct to other posters and many have highlighted this, even by people who agree with many of your points.

    No need to reply.

  13. @Tancred

    Please stop being an arse, thank you.

  14. @ALEC

    I would agree about Owen Smith. He did seem impressive and credible.

  15. AC – 11.06
    ‘Give me a vote on a federal UK and I’ll vote for it. I think it’s the only way we can have a UK that works in the best interests of all the constituent nations.’

    Many of us were asking for precisely that back in 2014 and we were denied the option by folk who thought we were incapable of understanding more than one question at a time!

    Hirteon – 10.45
    I’m in full accord with what you wrote.

    This is not a Saltire thread so I will stop.

  16. @ALLAN CHRISTIE
    @JAYBLANC

    It seems to me that there are a lot of very thin skinned people here who don’t like a robust discussion. Fair enough, noted. As for being rude, I can assure you I could be a lot more aggressive in my responses – I have been meek and mild so far.

  17. @Tancred – “As for being rude, I can assure you I could be a lot more aggressive in my responses…”

    Not on UKPR, I can assure you.

    When everyone tells you to tone it down and be more polite and thoughtful, then I think you should take the hint.

  18. ALEC
    The real question is actually why would Scotland want to join the Euro, and if it doesn’t, what other realistic options are there. You studiously avoided that part of my question!

    My guess would be that any indyref2 would be based on a Scottish £ linked to GBP controlled by a currency board along HK lines.

    In practice, I suspect that sharing the BoE would be a better option for both sides – at least until asset distribution and North Sea boundaries are agreed – but I think it unlikely that May would agree until after the referendum succeeded.

    Longer term, I don’t see joining the euro being a top priority but I wouldn’t rule it out, though its likelihood would depend on what sort of Brexit E&W eventually take. If EEA, then there may be no move at all.

  19. @tancreed,

    1) you are aggressive and rude and it doesn’t suit the forum.
    2) Owen Smith isn’t credible to me for two reasons. Firstly he has said he will spend £300 Bn on investment, where this figure, nearly three times the NHS comes from nobody has any idea. Secondly, you can’t praise the Welsh assembly referendum with a 0.3% majority and 52% turnout then throw a tantrum and ask for a second referendum when you actually lose one, more decisively.

    It looks like more socialist fantasy economics.

  20. @JAYBLANC

    “@Tancred – Please stop being an arse, thank you.”

    That’s a bit like saying to a leopard “don’t be spotty”.

    Anyway I’m not in the least offended by being accused of “spouting hysterical nonsense”, and I do agree that “spouting” is an appropriate word for a lot of what is written on this forum.

    But Tancred is one of the biggest culprits in this respect, ever since the referendum result was known, he has been constantly banging on about how it wasn’t democratic, was possibly fixed in some way, and should be re-run, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    He’s one of many still in denial, but may get over it one day.

  21. @Rich
    Smith’s £300m ‘investment’ funding, while large, is not wholly unreasonable.

    It’s viability depends on how it is financed and on what returns can be generated.

    As an example, if it is invested in constructing affordable rental / for sale housing in areas of high demand then it would – realistically – yield a return of about 5% gross per annum on the rental side or 5-8% capital return. In both cases it would deliver a significant positive return to HMRC.

    If it is invested in major infrastructure projects that deliver less direct financial benefits, e.g. HS2, then there is still a potentially good financial case.

    If it is invested in core infrastructure renewal (e.g. school/hospital repairs) then this, too, will generally show a positive financial benefit to HMRC over the medium term, as deferring repair work often results in a larger overall bill.

    However if it is ‘invested’ in current spending on – say – education or healthcare then the question of funding becomes critical, as the financial return (excluding the tax backflow) to HMRC is either long-deferred (education) or potentially non-existent.

    I’d argue that there is no better time to invest in genuine infrastructure spending – £100bn+ spent on long-term transport upgrades and affordable housing in London would be very wise indeed given that HMRC can borrow for 10 years at less than 1% and for thirty years at 1.7%.

  22. @rich – “Firstly he has said he will spend £300 Bn on investment, where this figure, nearly three times the NHS comes from nobody has any idea. ”

    That’s quite an interesting question. As the UK is now borrowing money at negative interest rates, the answer could well be to simply borrow this, paying back less in the future, in effect.

    Of course, it isn’t that simple, as doing this on such a large scale would completely trash people’s annuities, so isn’t impact free.

    There are other sensible routes for some of this. For example, the obsession with reducing corporation tax for no effective output really should stop. Far better to offer higher taxes on profits, but significant incentives to invest, as this would place our economy in a far better long term position.

    But at the end of it all, this is a leadership election. Best to put this in the same box as ‘greenest government ever’ I suspect.

  23. Softbank buying Arm is likely the first in a series of the remaining independent gems of the UK economy being snatched up by foreign companies in the post-brexit fire-sale. While they’ve given short term promises to keep the company based where it is, we know these mean little in the long term.

    Look for other patent/intellectual-property focused firms to be picked off. For instance, Dyson is a fat target, with its manufacturing already moved over-seas. Pharmaceuticals are probably a big target too.

  24. Rather worrying to see Britain’s ARM sold off to a Japanese company. You might not have heard of it, but it is an extremely important company, it designs the microchips for most of the world’s computing devices (virtually all smartphones and tablets use them, including Apple, Samsung etc, and even custom chips are usually built around ARM’s designs). Every time you buy a computing device, chances are that a portion of the price goes to ARM in royalties no matter who manufactures it.

    The government is trying to spin this into a positive story, but it isn’t. If a Japanese chip designer had set up a research centre/manufacturing facility in Britain then it would have been a vote of confidence in the UK’s future, but that’s quite the reverse of what is happening.

    In reality, the Japanese company Softbank will now own all of ARM’s designs, ownership of those will immediately be transferred out of Britain to Japan. Softbank will also be able to move the design facilities to whichever country they want too, and take ARM out of Britain completely if they wish. They have given “assurances” that they won’t do this, but it is standard practice to do so before a deal has been sealed. All that Softbank needs to do to legally go back on pre-sale promises is cite changed economic circumstances or some such. (Look at what Kraft did with Cadbury’s)

    Worst part of this is, May had specifically promised last week to protect British industry’s strategic assets, clearly the opposite of what is happening here. It makes you wonder if May’s political strategy is to say something in reassuringly forceful terms in order to give her cover to quietly move in another direction.

  25. EDGE OF SEAT

    Yes, the response to the ARM sale does suggest that there is a lot of hot air being blown about by the Government on changing economic policy.

    Still, this does make it more likely that they will simply fail rather than be the all conquering political Imperium of their dreams.

  26. SORBUS
    One of my quibbles would be with implication that PC is pro-independence, as that’s not my understanding of their current position.

    Nor mine, though my Welsh Aunt [now in her 80s] who joined PC well over half a century ago would demur.

    It’s interesting that he’s more cautious than some have been about how a unilateral declaration of independence would be received

    He’s right there, since it would not be viewed benignly by Spain. Even they might be brought around by the fact that it is unlike most independence movements in wanting to annul a single treaty. Spain also aquired Catalonia by treaty but that was long before Spain had a constitution, so there might be some wriggle room there given that the UK has no meaningful constitution. But it does emphasise why an article linked to on a previous thread suggested that Scotland’s joining on the day the UK leaves could allow successor state status being granted [without the opt-outs], requiring only a majority vote by EU states with none having a veto. If nobody remembers it and provides a link on this thread, I’ll have a go at finding it next time I have nothing better to do.

    The other interesting point is that although he briefly notes the problems of having a rUK outside the EU and NI and Scotland potentially inside the EU he doesn’t discuss ways this kind of situation might be handled.

    Agreed. It would be easy if E&W opted for Crown dependency status, leaving the Kingdom of Scotland as the EU and UN member state, but I don’t think that would appeal to Westminster!

    If the NI government isn’t prepared to allow a border poll, as a crown fiefdom at the time of the 1707 union, NI could be transferred to the Kingdom of Scotland if they wanted to, which would doubtless please many Scottish football fans. Someone needs to monitor the GFA and it would leave an open border. The DUP’s attitude doesn’t seem promising, though.

    One of the best ‘foreign interventions’ I read during the campaign was Enda Kenny’s analysis of the problems a UK exit would cause for Ireland and for British-Irish relations.

    I missed that. Do you have a link?

  27. @DAVID CARROD

    I would not say that I am ‘in denial’ because obviously the vote took place and the results came out. What I would say is that I find it astonishing that we on the remain side should simply be expected to shut up and be quiet. That is not how democracy works. The leave side has been very noisy since 1975 and no doubt they would have continued to be so had the recent result not gone their way. Unlike a GE this is not a regular five yearly event, hence the need to be absolutely certain whether this route is the right one for the country.

  28. @RICH

    I meant to say that Owen Smith sounds like he means business. At this stage it’s far too early to dig into him. As for his £300 billion figure, no doubt he will explain that in due course.
    When looking at the other two Labour candidates, Smith seems the only one who is remotely PM material.

  29. TANCRED @DAVID CARROD
    What I would say is that I find it astonishing that we on the remain side should simply be expected to shut up and be quiet. That is not how democracy works.

    You’re right there, but there’s a difference between robust debate and some of your posts. Much mainstream media “wisdom” gets posted here by posters who seem to resent the position of the Scottish Government, but they usually manage to keep their ire under control.

  30. @TANCRED

    ” I find it astonishing that we on the remain side should simply be expected to shut up and be quiet”

    That is not what I am saying. But there is no point now in going on about the validity of the referendum, the result is the result and we are where we are.

    The debate now is about when and how we should leave the EU, will it be an EEA solution, a WTO situation, or some other option not yet explored.

    Whichever of those it is, the media, academics, legal professionals and political commentators are doing the UK no favours by doom-and-gloom mongering. The past is done and dusted. The future is there to be shaped, and it is in everyone’s interest to be as positive as we can about that.

  31. ” The past is done and dusted. The future is there to be shaped, and it is in everyone’s interest to be as positive as we can about that.”

    Who owns the past, owns the future. Who owns the present owns the past.

  32. David Carrod,
    “That is not what I am saying. But there is no point now in going on about the validity of the referendum, the result is the result and we are where we are. … The future is there to be shaped, and it is in everyone’s interest to be as positive as we can about that.”

    If it had been 52% Remain, hand on heart would you have honestly then said:

    -Tthe matter was decided and there should be no more calls to leave the EU?

    -That any criticism of the EU or immigration was doom-mongering?

    -That everyone, even brexiters, have a duty to be as positive as possible about EU membership?

    …really?

    I suspect the answer from most Leave voters in the event of a 52% Remain vote would have been along the lines of Farage when he thought that Remain had “edged” it: that this was not settled, that he would continue to argue against membership.

    This idea that a referendum means a permanent end to debate is just crackers, especially if it becomes clear that the scenario painted by the Leave campaign (reduced immigration etc) doesn’t actually turn out to be true.

  33. I do hope Tancred doesn’t get put into moderation as I find his postings very helpful.
    I read them all very carefully and if I find myself agreeing withe anything he says, I know I need to have a serious re-evaluation of my logic.

  34. Barbazenzero

    Kenny’s piece is here.

  35. @EDGE OF SEAT
    “If it had been 52% Remain, hand on heart would you have honestly then said:

    -Tthe matter was decided and there should be no more calls to leave the EU?”

    If that had been the result, I would have accepted it as the democratic decision of the electorate, and also accepted that a further referendum in my lifetime would be unlikely.

    If we had voted to stay in, I would have been advocating that the UK should use its influence to steer the EU away from the creation of a Federal superstate, and to get the best possible deal from our membership.

    Farage would have disagreed, but UKIP would then have no real legitimacy in such a scenario.

  36. I find it intriguing that some Remainers claim that Brexiteers did not know what they were voting for, while others (and sometimes even the same people) when discussing Brexit trade deals, claim that Brexiteers will be disappointed because it won’t give them what they voted for.

    It seems that the argument is “Brexiteers didn’t know what they were voting for but we do”.

  37. Ludlownewboy

    They should have a read of this from ex-CBI chief and Minister under Gordon Brown Digby Jones:

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/house/77361/digby-jones-ignore-great-remain-sulk-%E2%80%93-and-get-brexit

  38. Regarding the position of Scotland, this is my take on it:

    1. If the Scottish Parliament passes a bill for a second independence referendum WM won’t oppose for various reasons:
    a) Scottish Parliament could dissolve itself and hold a SE instead based on a manifesto commitment to independence & 56 by-elections. The Scottish people would be pretty outraged by WM actions so no doubt majorities would be obtained in both.
    b) The Scottish Parliament has some games to play regarding not approving Brexit.
    c) Both the independence issue AND Brexit would end up in the courts all the way to the UN. dragging on for years.

    Not likely that WM would want this all happening in the middle of Brexit negotiations and trade deals.

    I think the accepted wisdom is becoming that Scotland will be independent within 10 years (53% overall, 62% Scotland)

    Sturgeon cannot agree to the triggering of article 50 with Scotland taken out of the EU no matter what the deal because of the ‘sovereignty of the people’ SNP core principle. She would need a second referendum to allow her to do that even if she wanted to, so there will either be a second Scottish referendum, court chaos as described above or no Brexit.

    I wonder if May and Sturgeon can work together and both get what they want. Sturgeon Scottish independence, May a soft Brexit and a voice via Scotland in the EU.

    A solution could be:

    1, Scotland independent in EU
    2. rUK out of EU with a good trade deal
    3. A rUK & Scotland formal relationship\treaty to replace act of union but close enough to make most No voters comfortable

  39. @David Carrod – “….. there is no point now in going on about the validity of the referendum, the result is the result and we are where we are.”

    Where we are is that 51.9% of the population voted for something that hasn’t yet been defined, so no, we don’t know where we are.

    It would be perfectly logical to reach the point where wherever we are becomes defined, so people know both where we are now and where will could be in the future, and then ask people if where we could be is actually where they want to be, or whether they would be happier where we are now.

    I think that’s where we are now.

  40. @Edge of Seat
    “If it had been 52% Remain, hand on heart would you have honestly then said: … etc etc”
    There is a big difference between 52% Remain and 52% Leave.
    If 52% Remain, nothing changes and the Leavers still want to leave, but life goes on with UK in EU, and no particular reason to run another referendum.
    If 52% Leave, and we do leave, a whole host of things must be changed, worldwide as well as in Europe, and even in UK simply because the people and attitudes in charge have changed.
    “if it becomes clear that the scenario painted by the Leave campaign (reduced immigration etc) doesn’t actually turn out to be true.” that depends at least in part on the UK determination to make it happen. But it’s not just whether some particular outcomes desired by Leavers come about. It’s whether the boat stays afloat in the choppy waters we are entering. That is why Remainers should accept the decision. Point to problems, Yes. Expect a re-run, No.
    IIRC Mrs May said not only Brexit is Brexit, but ‘we must make it work’

  41. LudlowNB: “I find it intriguing that some Remainers claim that Brexiteers did not know what they were voting for, while others (and sometimes even the same people) when discussing Brexit trade deals, claim that Brexiteers will be disappointed because it won’t give them what they voted for.”

    The fundamental referendum question was: Do you want things to remain the same or be different?

    A small majority voted for things to be different. But “different” meant different things to different people: for some it was an end to immigration; for others an end to austerity and growing inequality; for others a change in poetical arrangements.

    Brexit was never positively defined. If we assume it means just no longer belonging to the EU, then it is fully satisfied by EEA membership, with free movement, acceptance of regulations and directives, and continued budget payments. If this is the del, the government can say, “this is what you voted for, get over it.”

  42. ” for others a change in poetical arrangements.”

    Ah, if only it were all about rhyme and metre!

  43. Somerjohn
    “The fundamental referendum question was: Do you want things to remain the same or be different?”

    I think a lot of Leave voters may have thought the fundamental question was: Do you want things to carry on getting worse or have a chance to improve them?”

    But of course we’re both just guessing.

  44. SORBUS

    Many thanks for the Kenny link. I hadn’t seen it before but agree he did his utmost to detail the facts without trying to pressurise anyone. Sad to see that his words seem to have had little or no influence on the 1112 comments which follow. If delivered separately in NI it may have helped to secure their remain vote.

    Having just watched BoJo on the news apparently claiming that nothing will change, I wonder if the DUP’s voting NO was in the expectation that remain would win in much the same way as our new Foreign Secretary may merely have been aiming for the eurosceptic vote in the Con leadership campaign.

  45. @SOMERJOHN

    “A small majority voted for things to be different. But “different” meant different things to different people: for some it was an end to immigration; for others an end to austerity and growing inequality; for others a change in poetical arrangements.”

    Having done a fair amount of doorstep canvassing in the weeks leading up to the vote, I would reject the assumption that people didn’t know what they were voting for.

    Most people I spoke to were clear that by voting Leave, the UK would regain its Sovereignty, have complete control over law making, cease subsidising the EU budget (and indirectly the poor economies of many of its members), and gain a degree of control over immigration numbers.

    Older voters, who voted in the 1975 referendum, predominantly said that they voted Yes then to a European free trade area, but not for the political union that subsequently followed. If they had known in 1975 what they know now, it would have been a ‘No’ vote.

  46. COUPER2802

    I find your 1.24 post interesting but in your scenario what happens about the UK/Scotland border. Brexit I believe means control of UK borders, if Scotland is in the EU presumably there will have to be a proper border to prevent uncontrolled immigration into England from Scotland of EU nationals. Or have i got it wrong somehow?

  47. Alec

    “I think that’s where we are now.”

    Sorry i don’t thinks that’s where we are now. May has made it clear that there should be no second referendum. That line of reasoning is like that adopted by the EU itself, keep asking for referendums until you get the answer you want.

    Of course she may be lying and I don’t trust politicians so you could be correct, I just don’t think so. She keeps saying Brexit means Brexit ie we leave the EU.

  48. Ok so if an independent Scotland stays in or rejoins the Eu, it will not be obliged to join the Euro. In which case Scotland’s currency will continue to be Stirling?

  49. Labour ; Smith might do marginally better than Jezza. Eagle will not.
    Scotland: Would you rather be in the EU or the UK? Answer the EU.
    In that case “I beseech you from the bowels of Christ begone.
    Scotland 2: Same question. Answer the UK.
    In that case shut the f–k up.

  50. @ToH
    Brokenshire is saying the Eire / N Ireland border will remain open even after the UK leaves the EU, which is the same situation so I am not sure how that works either.

    I guess one consequence would be that Scotland, like RoI, would not be part of Schengen?

1 4 5 6 7 8 10