What sort of Brexit?

I’ll be taking a break from the blog over the next week while I have a summer rest (I may pop in if something interesting happens, but I’m going to try not to), but before I go a quick pointer to something I wrote over on the YouGov website on what the public think about Brexit.

The type of Brexit the public want is a tricky subject to poll. It will obviously be one of the dominant issues in British politics over the next few years, yet we also know so little of it. We don’t yet know with any confidence what the government’s aims or negotiating position will be, nor what other European countries will be willing to offer (or what they will want in return). Public opinion will be one of the limitations upon the government’s negotiations so it’s certainly important, but it’s hard to measure it at this stage when people have so little information about what’s on offer.

We tried to explore the issue in two ways. The first was to ask whether people thought various things would be acceptable trade-offs in exchange for continued British free trade with the EU. That suggests that the public would accept having to follow some EU trade rules, could be persuaded on immigration (33% think freedom of movement is desirable anyway, 19% a price worth paying, 33% a deal-breaker), but would object to Britain making a financial contribution to the EU (41% think it would be fine or a price worth paying, 44% think it would be a deal-breaker).

However, taking things individually risks being a little misleading. When it comes to it a deal will be a package of measures and will be judged as a whole. On that basis, I think the questions that present people with various scenarios and ask them to judge them as a whole are more enlightening.

By 44% to 32% people thought it would be bad for Britain if we simply left and had no trade deal with the remainder of the EU. A Norway-type deal, with Britain joining EFTA and maintaining free trade with EU in exchange for free-movement, a financial contribution and following trade rules is seen a little less negatively (35% good, 38% bad)… but perhaps more importantly, by 42% to 32% people would see it as not seen as honouring the result of the referendum. Finally, we asked about a Canada-type deal, where there is no freedom of movement or financial contribution, but only a limited free trade deal that excludes services. That was seen as both honouring the result of the referendum, and as positive for Britain.

Of course negotiations haven’t yet started and the actual deals that end upon on the table may very well differ from these examples. I suspect views are not very deeply held yet, and people may very well change their minds when deals start to take shape and politicians and the media start to debate them. The public’s starting point, however, seems to be that a limited trade deal is both the best solution and a solution that respects the referendum result. We shall see how that changes once the negotiations actually begin.

The full tabs are on the website here.


920 Responses to “What sort of Brexit?”

1 13 14 15 16 17 19
  1. Alec (@ 8 pm)

    Great points. Technology has a habit of leaving politicians in the dust: people used to worry about phones being a natural monopoly, and it’s not so long ago that people were proposing a “supermarket tax” (how long until we hear about a “supermarket subsidy”, I wonder?).

  2. Somerjohn

    “Oldnat, Scotland will thrive as an independent country, the saltire is a noble banner etc but the blame game over health inequalities is tedious. Sorry”

    Why apologise to me? I didn’t mention it.

    I am, however, interested in the thrust that NHS Scotland is putting on Vitamin D supplements for women in the early months of pregnancy during winter, and for some of us oldies.

    Often, improvements in societal problems come from professionals knowing more, rather than politicians talking.

  3. @Candy
    That story could have been spun in entirely the opposite direction – sharp rise in car mileage over the last two years almost wiping out the decline following the crash.
    The explanation in the article for the alleged decline is that everybody’s getting too old to go out!
    Anybody got stats for car use in the UK?
    Nearly all the major new developments in my area – especially in suburban town centres are ‘car free’: A few spaces for blue badge holders, a couple for car clubs, nothing for ordinary residents and no right to get passes for surrounding CPZs.

  4. Good Evening All from a hot Bournemouth East.
    COLIN.
    Hello to you.
    For balance I also give the purges under Henry V111, Elizabeth and Cromwell

  5. chrislane1945

    “For balance I also give the purges under Henry V111, Elizabeth and Cromwell”

    Indeed. Since medicine at that time advocated purging as one way to keep the humours in the body in balance, to apply the same concept to the body politic was not unreasonable.

    It seems a very anachronistic concept still to be used in the “modern” Labour Party, though! (not much humour left either) :-)

  6. OldNat

    The analogy of the deal between the Scots and Cromwell would be below the belt I suppose, even if Scotland will urgently need such a deal (they do, and probably they will get it, and they don’t even have to give over Charles).

    In any case blood letting was considered useful, and we have many anecdotes that it worked …

    Not very good when the leader of the opposition is a supporter quackery (well former supporter as he saw the light. Kind of a problem when he considered homeopathy is aomething to be financed by the tax payers, so he fell for the magic, and then suddently fell for another magic – hello, I was a complete i…t (he didn’t say that which is fine as he show that he is not an infiltrator communist among whom self-criticism is a virtue) but now I don’t support quackery, so I’m trustworthy).

    There is actually a lot of humour in the LP. Come on! The guy getting on the voting sheet because of “broadening the debate” and once the debate is broadened, 170 odd people looking for Brutus to stop such a nonsense as a debate. Then the game they learnt (not very well) from the Count of Monte Christo, as the guy stays where he was.

    So, lost all plots, the 170 chose the predator of that peninsula (Wirral), just to ditch her for a man who succesfully combined three words, although has a difficulty with whole sentences, can speak louder than the reigning champion, and has the agility of youth like in those Kraftwerk videos.

    Isn’t it humorous? The challenger can even win without being able to say a coherent sentence (plagiarism does not count), which is really hilarious.

    ao, there is plenty of humour left.

  7. May has been advised that she can use the Royal Prerogative to push through Brexit, just as PM Herbert Asquith pushed the nation into war in August 1914 and Chamberlain likewise in September 1939.

    In my opinion this form of political decision making is unacceptable in a modern parliamentary democracy. The rule of the monarch setting aside parliamentary sovereignty is something that does not belong in the 21st century.

    This well written article expands on the issue here: http://www.politicalstorm.com/uk-government-trying-pass-brexit-bypassing-parliament/

    I very much doubt that the legal challenge will make any headway, given that anything that looks as if it might challenge the powers of HM could be construed as undermining the monarchy. The implications have significance well beyond the invoking of article 50. Nevertheless, I hope that May will decide that in order to keep her party united she will yield to demands for a parliamentary vote, even if she wins the court case. Proceeding on such an important path without parliamentary approval would be seen as contempt for the sovereignty of parliament and cause significant damage for the reputation of the PM.

  8. Tencred

    I think the courts will say that Parliament must vote before article 50 can be triggered by Theresa May. This is for the simple reason that Parliament never made the outcome of the referendum binding on either Parliament or Government. Also given that there is 40 years of Bills of Parliament that relate to UK EU membership, if there is to be a decision to start the process of changing much of this, then Parliament must sanction this. There are an estimated 38,000 pages of Bills of Parliament that will need to be gone through at a significant cost and take up a lot of Parliamentary time.

  9. As an outsider in the Lab leadership contest, it seems to me that Owen Smith is really floundering. He is looking increasingly desperate, gaffe-prone and incompetent. Dare I say it, Corbyn looks more prime ministerial…

    It is interesting to se how others have crashed and burned when exposed to the close scrutiny of a leadership election:
    Andrea Leadsom is now 66/1 to be the next Tory leader, and Liz Kendall is 125/1 for next Labour supremo.

    Smith is under the microscope and performing very badly – he is completely finished as a serious politician, imho.
    I note that those seeking a change at the top are concentrating exclusively on criticism of JC rather than singing the praises of their candidate. He has become an embarrassment.

  10. CHRISLANE

    Of course-I did not mean to suggest sectarian bias :-)

    Presumably your Priest Hole is already prepared for the safe Remembrance of Election Victories ?

  11. MILLIE

    @”I note that those seeking a change at the top are concentrating exclusively on criticism of JC rather than singing the praises of their candidate”

    Because, as Rawnsley explains in this interesting article, Smith chose to present as a ” competent” Corbyn-so the contest was
    “devoid of the interplay of ideas.” & “As for effectiveness, many of St Jeremy’s supporters simply will not accept that he is a poor leader, ”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/28/labour-leadership-interesting-experiment-corbyn

    There is an interesting piece in Indy about Maxine Peake ticking off her fellow actors for “abandoning” JC after initially supporting him.

    She is quoted as saying:

    ““He’s just a great role model…He’s someone who’s got compassion. What’s wrong with wanting the best for everybody?”

    What’s wrong indeed. This is a rhetorical question. Thus is the Chauncey Gardner like simplicity translated into profundity.

    Like Chauncey, Corbyn is walking on water.

  12. @Millie – I am genuinely quite surprised at your post, and outright disagree with it. I won’t go further, because it bores people, but I don’t think many independent people would agree that Corbyn’s campaign has been better than Smith’s.

    For example, last night, Smith came across on national news with 120 seconds packed with starightforward (and very substantial) policy announcements, complete with an outline plan to pay for them, designed with a specific part of the electorate in mind.

    In the last twelve months, incuding this campaign, I’ve not witnessed anything remotely as clear as that from Corbyn.

    We’ll certainly see what the polls and final result shows, but I would be fairly certain that you will find strong evidence to show that Smith has gained support during the campaign while Corbyn has lost it.

  13. @Tancred
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7141279.stm

    @ Huckle
    and if we are invaded, who will go to the courts to insist on a parliamentary debate before we declare war, on the grounds that war is a costly business involving all of industry?

  14. @TANCRED
    Proceeding on such an important path without parliamentary approval would be seen as contempt for the sovereignty of parliament and cause significant damage for the reputation of the PM.
    —-
    I thought it wouldn’t be long before the Remoaners picked up on this one.

    Parliament took the decision, rightly or wrongly, to leave the decision on staying in or leaving the EU up to the electorate.

    They could have chosen to have a debate and vote on it in the house, but didn’t. The electorate have spoken, so now Parliament must get on with implementing the result.

    Brexit means Brexit, although we have yet to discover what form it will take.

  15. @Colin

    Because, as Rawnsley explains in this interesting article, Smith chose to present as a ” competent” Corbyn-so…

    This certainly chimes with my feelings about Owen’s campaign. Settling the Corbyn or not-Corbyn question cannot resolve the divisions over policy, strategy and positioning, because they’ve been designed out of the campaign from the start.

    Non-Corbynites are fighting a proxy battle based on Corbyn’s competence. This question is real and pressing, but the significant long-term issues will persist however it is answered: competence is only part of the equation.

    Incidentally, Nick Cohen in the same paper provides a persuasive (to me, at least) analysis of the impact of online media in polarising US politics, which seems just as relevant here, too, in explaining why recent key political arguments have become so fractured and apparently immune to factual correction and challenge.

    Definitely worth reading for a depressing counterbalance to the view the online and social media have freed politics from the mainstream media conspiracy and bias.

  16. …and here’s the Cohen article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/27/donald-trump-fox-news-charlie-sykes-modern-debate?

    (separately posts because I wasn’t sure if AW’s resistance to Graun links is still in force, though if so you seem to have special dispensation.)

  17. MUDDY

    @”Non-Corbynites are fighting a proxy battle based on Corbyn’s competence. This question is real and pressing, but the significant long-term issues will persist however it is answered: competence is only part of the equation.”

    Spot on I reckon-which merely emphasises the chasm between these factions which has had the carpet over it for long.

    …….The Crevasse in The Room.

    Thanks for the tip on the Cohen article. It is certainly a view I concur with. The ubiquitous swiping smart phone user is the icon of the age & symbol of the Great Echo Chamber in cyberspace where they all live now. ( including all but one of my grandchildren !)

  18. “It need not be that way. An urgent, if undiscussed, reform is for governments to legislate to stop Facebook and others using their algorithms to deliver news users want to hear, rather than need to hear. More important would be a cultural reaction against the impoverishment so many supporters of the populist movements exhibit. Their inability to argue, their denial of hard evidence, their certainties, and their fanatical denunciations of sellouts, traitors and apostates speak of men and women whose souls have withered along with their minds.

    They should be made to face their own inadequacies, and asked politely but repeatedly: who wants to live their life with only the echo of their own voice for company?”

    Nick Cohen.

    Wonderful.

  19. Muddy-got auto-zapped for quoting Cohen’s last two paragraphs.

    So right-and beautifully written.

  20. …….The Crevasse in The Room.

    He, yeah. Though crevasse may be too passive a concept. All this is a choice which the party can make or unmake.

    A broad tent can be a fine thing, but if the expedition’s leaders choose to pitch one end of it over a scorpion’s nest, some people will probably decide to sleep elsewhere.

  21. “Brexit means Brexit, although we have yet to discover what form it will take.”

    Which effectively means

    “Brexit means Brexit, although we don’t know what Brexit means”.

  22. @Alec

    Oddly enough, I don’t disagree with you that much. I don’t have a vote, and it hasn’t exercised me much, but I would probably prefer Smith if I had to choose.

    And he might be making some inroads into the Corbyn vote, although he is set to lose, I’m almost certain.

    My point is that he does not look remotely prime ministerial, and I think he is set for comparative political obscurity. He is lightweight in my view.

    It does make you wonder how Tom Watson or Hilary Benn would have fared, had they stood.

  23. Whilst Theresa May can use the Royal Preogative to activate Article 50 , there is nothing to prevent MPs tabling a motion condemning such a course of action. Were such a motion to be carried her position would become impossible and would amount to a Vote of No Confidence.

  24. Good morning all from a warm but grey Clarkston East Renfrewshire.

    First Celtic match in about 6 months and it was a cracker. Hail Hail top of the league and in the champions league.

    ALEC…..”“Brexit means Brexit, although we don’t know what Brexit means”
    ________

    Your mantra is extremely repetitive but then again so is mine.. “remain means remain, although we don’t know what remain means?

    I keep asking..

  25. As far as I see, Parliament ceded the decision on the membership of the European by agreeing to a referendum.

    The decision was made.

    The decision is enacted by the PM.

  26. Why does the media keep saying Owen Smith is Welsh? He was born in Morecambe.

    Anyway he’s heading for a major defeat against ol Corby and if anyone thinks this guy is prime minister material then they are clearly bonkers….cuckoo…..one sandwich short of a picnic sort of stuff.

  27. David Lloyd George was born in Manchester . Alastair Darling in London!

  28. JONESINBANGOR

    Totally agree with you. The Tories said they would give the British people a chance to vote in a in out EU referendum in their manifesto , they got elected and as such they have every right to implement each part of their manifesto.

    We have seen on several occasions where the Tories have been defeated by the opposition over some of their manifesto commitments so why did the opposition not stop the referendum from going ahead?

    It’s sour grapes and never ending moans from the remoaners.

  29. WILLIAM

    Don’t forget Tony Blair…..He was born in Edinburgh but I never thought of him as being Scottish anyway…

  30. @DAVID CARROD

    “Parliament took the decision, rightly or wrongly, to leave the decision on staying in or leaving the EU up to the electorate.”

    No, not really, as the referendum is not binding, but merely consultative, with the final decision resting with parliament.
    Hence the importance of having a debate and vote in parliament AFTER the referendum result.

  31. WILLIAM

    I think there is absolutely no chance of that happening because such a motion would be lost. I think JONESINBANGOR has got it spot on and most MP’s accept that position IMO. What I do think there will be argument about in parliament is the type of Brexit to be achieved but in the end it seems clear that we are leaving the EU and probably with something like the Canada style deal as the polling suggests.

  32. @WILLIAM

    “Whilst Theresa May can use the Royal Preogative to activate Article 50 , there is nothing to prevent MPs tabling a motion condemning such a course of action. Were such a motion to be carried her position would become impossible and would amount to a Vote of No Confidence.”

    Interesting. It’s certainly an option, although it would require a substantial measure of support from rebel Tory MPs – not sure if there would be enough to make it work.
    What I do believe is that if May uses the Royal Prerogative, the fake Tory unity of ‘we are all Brexiters now’ will disappear into a puff of smoke. There are more MPs than Ken Clarke out there willing to put up opposition.

  33. @DAVE

    “@ Huckle
    and if we are invaded, who will go to the courts to insist on a parliamentary debate before we declare war, on the grounds that war is a costly business involving all of industry?”

    Interesting. Had there been a full parliamentary debate in August 1914 there is no certainty at all that the cabinet line would have been followed. The City was resolutely opposed to war and many MPs were far more concerned with the crisis in Ireland than what Germany was doing.

    In 1939 it was a different kettle of fish, but even then there would not have been unanimity.

  34. “The Crevasse in the Room” – as against the Elephant in the Room of migration as an inevitable aspect of the international labour market in the globalised economy,essential to the UK’s future prosperity and a balanced age dependency, as recgonised by the CBI and the TGU as a necessary component of trading with the EU and therefore jobs and industrial growth, as identified by Juncker as the future for the prosperity and welfare of EU northern counries, and as carefully obscured both in the Leave campaign and in the promises of the present oh-so-competent Government?

  35. @R HUCKLE

    Hopefully you are right, but I think that HM will express alarm if Her Royal privileges are challenged. The British Establishment is full of strange and murky lanes and alleyways that very few people know anything about, and most (if not all) senior members of the judiciary are long standing Freemasons.
    What would be amusing would be if HM actually disagreed with the PM over article 50 and refused to allow the PM the right to exercise the Royal Prerogative. Not that would see the cat among the pigeons.

  36. @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “Why does the media keep saying Owen Smith is Welsh? He was born in Morecambe.
    Anyway he’s heading for a major defeat against ol Corby and if anyone thinks this guy is prime minister material then they are clearly bonkers….cuckoo…..one sandwich short of a picnic sort of stuff.”

    Nonsense – he might have been born in Morecambe but his father is certainly Welsh (Professor Dai Smith) and Owen is as Welsh as you get in speech, mannerisms etc. Your other comments are just insults.

  37. From my chats with Labour supporters, Corbyn is pretty popular in Wales.

    I don’t think Smith will get much support from them.

  38. Owen Smith is pleasingly Welsh.

  39. JONESINBANGOR

    No he’s not very popular in SE Wales either. There’s too much leakage revealing his real views : the off-camera sexism to Leanne Wood and elbowing aside Eagle; the instinctive support for Branson’s narrative on Traingate; the contempt for democracy whether on Brexit or LP Leadership; and above all his chameleon like So-Shall-I-ism.

    Carwyn Jones would have been a much better candidate actually. Not a left winger but doesn’t pretend to be one either. Interesting that Carwyn has been correctly impartial in his stance on the leadership election. He has standards. Smith is also a known sceptic of devolution and his latest claim that because he is Welsh he somehow understands Scotland better belongs in the lengthening offensive gaffe book. He also astonishingly blames Corbyn for LPs demise in Scotland which was actually contrived by a string of right-wingers of whom Kezia Dugdale, Jim Murphy and the lamentable Douglas Alexander are the most recent examples. This deserves separate entries in the “Blame Corbyn” and “Huge Fib” Books.

  40. I don’t know if this is just a London thing but I keep running across people who voted Corbyn last time but have since changed.
    As I’ve said for a while, I think Corbyn will win but that it will be a lot closer than generally believed. The difference in bookies odds has been gently narrowing, which points to the same.
    Saving Labour are claiming Smith is ahead but I’ve yet to meet anybody who believes them

  41. May will have an interesting meeting on Wednesday about Brexit.

    It the meantime, there is an interesting visualisation of the referendum (can’t remember if it had already been linked).

    https://medium.com/@jakeybob/brexit-maps-d70caab7315e#.q0xi4qeev

  42. Well, if Corbyn wins there will probably be a split in the Labour Party. This will be great news for the Tories but it won’t help Labour at all.

  43. @Tancred – “No, not really, as the referendum is not binding, but merely consultative, with the final decision resting with parliament.”

    Actually the legislation authorising the referendum doesn’t explicitly say it is non-binding. It doesn’t use the words “consultative”. It doesn’t say it is binding either.

    Here it is:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/section/1/enacted

    It simply says “A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”

    The sequence of events is as follows:

    General election returns conservative govt in May 2015. Parliament is elected on a 66% turnout and the referendum is in the ruling party’s manifesto.

    Parliament legislates to allow the referendum. Does not use the words “non-binding” in the legislation. Act was carried in the Commons by 544 to 53. It then gets approved by the Lords, and the Monarch gives her assent. In other words, all branches have agreed to it.

    Referendum is held on June 23rd with Leave winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 72% (a much higher turnout than that which elected the current Parliament).

    Can you see why it would be problematic for Parliament to overturn the result? It would have been the equivalent of legislating in the first place to say “a referendum to be held with only one option available”. In other words an fraud on the people who thought they were making a genuine choice.

    They’d get slaughtered at the next general election if they tried to overturn the result. What next for the Europhiles? Go full authoritarian EU and demand that the next general election be cancelled too lest people vote in Brexit MPs? That will never be allowed – this is the UK after all, not some tinpot European country that allows coups by eurocrats.

    Remainers have two choices: accept the result and vote against the govt at the next election or move to an EU country that is amenable to never ever having referendums on the EU. It is possible you might get another referendum in 40 years time, if the EU is still in existence then.

  44. Millie – “My point is that he does not look remotely prime ministerial, and I think he is set for comparative political obscurity. He is lightweight in my view.”

    You are correct on this. He is not one of Labour’s best, he’s less likely to form a govt than Miliband was.

    His only attraction to Labour members is that he is a vehicle to get rid of Corbyn. They can easily get rid of Smith later, he won’t cling on if he is found wanting. Whereas Corbyn appears to want to be Leader for Life like his heroes Castro, Chavez and Scargill.

    Any Lab person who believes Smith might actually win an election, has been at the Hopium. Lab does have some attractive people in it, but none appear to want to lead the party at the moment.

  45. GUYMONDE I don’t think it’s just a London thing.

  46. OLDNAT, SAM & BARBAZENZERO
    Many thanks again to the three of you for supplying references relative to the Scottish economy. Having tried to digest the material I concluded that:
    1. The Scottish and UK Governments do not provide enough “hard figures” to come to any real conclusion as to how good or bad the Scottish economy is.
    2. The same can be said as to the pros and cons of the effects of Brexit on both the UK and Scotland. Obviously I looked at other information on the Brexit issue and concluded it is almost all biased one way or the other as was obvious during the referendum.
    3. I think I see why the Scottish voters would probably opt for Devo-max rather than full independence if it were an option.
    4. I also think I can see why the UK Government did not offer Devo-max.
    In view of 1 & 2 above, one is left with what information is available, inadequate though it is and one’s own emotional reaction to nationalistic v European concepts
    If I had been born and lived in Scotland I suspect I would probably want to stay in the UK but with Devo-max, and I would still vote Brexit, but that’s pure speculation on my part. I thought you would like to have a reaction from me but I certainly do not wish to get into a debate about my conclusions. I just do not have the time.

  47. @CANDY

    Referendums are clearly accepted as non-binding – it does not need to be written into the legislation because it’s a fact in constitutional law:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom#2016_European_Union_membership_referendum

    Parliament is perfectly entitled to veto the referendum result if it feels that it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom to leave the EU. The referendum was called to seek public opinion on the issue of EU membership, not to make a sovereign decision that is binding on the UK government.

    “Can you see why it would be problematic for Parliament to overturn the result? It would have been the equivalent of legislating in the first place to say “a referendum to be held with only one option available”. In other words an fraud on the people who thought they were making a genuine choice.”

    This absolutely not true. As I said, the referendum can come with either result but it is not binding on the government. This is understood from the start, and there is no fraud. David Cameron may have made noises beforehand about the referendum deciding things once and for all, but he is a politician, not a constitutional lawyer.

    “They’d get slaughtered at the next general election if they tried to overturn the result. What next for the Europhiles? Go full authoritarian EU and demand that the next general election be cancelled too lest people vote in Brexit MPs? That will never be allowed – this is the UK after all, not some tinpot European country that allows coups by eurocrats.”

    Rubbish. Most people don’t regard the EU as a key electoral issue, and one of the reasons for the high ‘leave’ vote is that it gave people an opportunity to register discontent with a whole host of issues, many of which are completely disconnected from the EU. Your last comment is pure lunacy.

    “Remainers have two choices: accept the result and vote against the govt at the next election or move to an EU country that is amenable to never ever having referendums on the EU. It is possible you might get another referendum in 40 years time, if the EU is still in existence then.”

    It is not for you to determine what choices remainers have. Ultimately, the courts will decide whether parliament can vote on the issue, and the legal decision will have to be respected. If parliament then blocks the invocation of article 50 the PM will most likely resign and hand over to a new PM with the mandate to re-negotiate Britain’s EU membership and put the question one more time to the electorate in a new referendum.
    Your comment about deporting 48% of the UK population to other EU countries demonstrates that you are in dire need of psychiatric help.

  48. @ TANCRED

    Come on! A vote in Parliament would support the PM anyway, the only question now is when Article 50is invoked.

    There’ll be plenty of opportunities for Parliamentary debate on the new non-EU relationship with our neighbours.

  49. TANCRED

    “Rubbish. Most people don’t regard the EU as a key electoral issue”

    I’m afraid that is not supported by the polling as Brexit is seen as the most important issue facing the UK. in the most recent polls.

    ” that you are in dire need of psychiatric help.”

    Arguably that could be also be said of those who cannot accept the result of the EU referendum. Candy did not say she wanted to deport 48% of the UK population what she said was that one of the choices for those who do not like the result of the EU referendum is to leave the UK. There is nothing silly in that it’s a realistic option.

  50. ALLAN CHRISTIE @ WILLIAM
    Don’t forget Tony Blair…..He was born in Edinburgh but I never thought of him as being Scottish anyway…

    Of more current relevance, Angus Robertson was born in Wimbledon, but I don’t think anyone regards him as other than a Scot.

    Being born in a stable does not make one a horse, as allegedly Arthur Wellesley said when someone called him Irish.

1 13 14 15 16 17 19