Earlier this week NatCen released new polling on what people want from Brexit. The vast majority (90%) of people would like to keep free trade with the European Union. By 70% to 22% people would also like to limit the amount of EU immigration into Britain. Getting these two things together does not, of course, seem particularly likely. Asked if Britain should agree to keep free movement in exchange for keeping free trade, people are much more evenly split – 49% think we should, 51% think we should not (the full report is here).

Personally, I still think the best way of judging public opinion on Brexit is probably not to ask about individual policies, but to test some plausible scenarios – when it comes to it, people will judge the deal as a whole, not as the sum of its parts. YouGov released some updated polling on Brexit today that repeated that experiment, and again found that a Canadian type deal is likely to get the widest support from the public (that is, no freedom of movement and a more limited trade deal). The problem with a Norway type deal – retaining full free-trade with the EU in exchange for keeping freedom of movement and a financial contribution is that most of the public would see it as not respecting the result of the referendum.

I’ve written a much longer piece about the YouGov polling over on the YouGov site here, so I won’t repeat it all. One interesting bit though is looking at the possible outcomes of an early election, fought on the issue of Brexit. Now, I should start with some important caveats – hypothetical election questions are very crude tools. While I’m sure an early election would be dominated by the issue of Brexit, there would be other issues at play too, so a question like this will over emphasise the impact of Brexit policy. Nevertheless, it suggests some interesting patterns. YouGov asked how people would vote if Brexit could not pass a Parliamentary vote and instead an early election happened. In the scenarios the Conservatives and UKIP back Brexit (as they undoubtedly would) and the Lib Dems back a second referendum (as they’ve said they would). YouGov offered three different scenarios for Labour – one, where Labour back Brexit, two where Labour back only a “soft Brexit”, three where Labour also offer a second referendum. In all three cases the Conservatives would win easily – even the closest scenario gives them a twelve point lead. The interesting finding is the Lib Dems – in the two scenarios where they are the only party offering a second referendum their support goes up to 19% or 22% (if Labour also offer a referendum the Lib Dems don’t gain nearly so much). So, while these are hypothetical questions that need to be taken with a pinch of salt, it does suggest that appealing to those voters who really are set against Brexit could be a route back for the Lib Dems, especially if they are the lone “anti-Brexit” party. The full results for the YouGov polling are here.

Meanwhile Ipsos MORI released their monthly political monitor. In terms of voting intention the Conservative lead is halved from last month, but that is likely something of a reversion to the mean after a towering eighteen point lead last month. Topline figures are CON 42%, LAB 33%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 7%, GRN 3%. As ever, wait until you see the change echoed in other polls before concluding that the Conservative lead is waning.

Theresa May still enjoys a positive approval rating – 54% are satisfied with the job she is doing, 30% disatisfied. The new government also have a net positive rating at their handling of the economy so far – 51% think they’ve done a good job, 30% a bad job. Where the public are not convinced is on how the government are handling the biggest issue – only 37% think the government are doing a good job at handling Brexit, 48% think they are doing a bad job. Full details of the MORI poll are here.


424 Responses to “NatCen & YouGov polling on Brexit and MORI’s political monitor”

1 2 3 4 9
  1. S Thomas,

    “it is alright Scotland saying they love immigration safe in the knowledge that the immigrants would prefer not to go there.That is why scotland is depopulating.”

    Scotland’s population is growing, has been doing so for the last decade and is predicted to grow by about 5% over the next 20-30 years.

    That growth is substantially below predictions for the UK with England in particular, when Scotland, Wales & NI are removed, predicted to grow by close to close to 20%. Those figures are however pre Brexit.

    Between 2001-11 the Number of EU citizens in Scotland rose from just under 4% to over 7% of the population with Poles now the largest ethnic group ahead of Indians and Pakistani’s.

    As it stands on the predictions we have Scotland and England’s growth rates would be roughly equal Scotland’s rate doubled and England’s halted, which oddly enough could well be the long term outcome of Brexit and Indy2!

    Peter.

  2. @S Thomas

    Not so. I think latest figures indicate that Scotland’s population is now higher than it has ever been.

    And a work permit regime which allowed someone to work in Scotland but not elsewhere in the UK would be perfectly possible. Idem for residency. Presumably the English would allow a person holding such a permit to travel for tourism purposes…… though even that may be too much to ask of those xenophobes down south.

    I was going to start by picking up on OldNat’s point at the beginning of the thread. I have heard it said that MPs ought not to vote against the will of the people as expressed in the Referendum. But surely in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, where MPs represent their local constituents, MPs would do well to reflect the voting in their areas. So I would expect SNP MPs to represent Scotland’s expressed intention, which was to remain in the EU. I certainly would take a very dim view if my MP voted for us to come out just to please those who voted to stay in!

    As to Old Nat vs Candy I despair………
    Can no-one in England understand that Elizabeth Tudor was never Queen north of the border? There never was a ‘Tudor Scotland’, just as there never was a ‘Bourbon England’ (though its obvious that what happened after the end of the Tudors is not replicated in the relationship between England and France – though it might have been, had medieval history worked out differentely.

    And here’s a question to prove the point: Who was the first Stewart monarch? Answers on a post card, as they say.
    All I would say, as a clue, is that it was not James VI!

    Have a good day, all.

  3. ‘It’s’, rather than ‘its’. And the closing bracked is missing.

    Sorry

  4. JOHNB

    “Can no-one in England understand that Elizabeth Tudor was never Queen north of the border?”

    I have always understood that which is why I posted to OLDNAT that Elizabeth 1 is a very significant figure in England.

  5. @ Danny

    “i still think california went democrat because it is doing well economically and therefore does not have voters who feel left out from the nations wealth. I think this is probably a trend, but equally the reverse trend has been building in other states.”

    Meh, for most of the state, I think you’re incorrect. There are other places doing just fine economically. In fact, the whole country is improving economically.

    But you might be onto something actually when it comes to our rural counties. California has rural counties? Why yes, we do.

    http://www.rcrcnet.org/counties

    So here’s what is surprising. A lot of these counties have been reliably Republican. And for many counties, this year was no exception. (There are some exceptions to this rule like some of the Bay Area and North Coast Counties). But unlike their rural counterparts elsewhere in the nation who saw massive swings to Trump, these counties, with only a handful of exceptions, either had swings to Hillary or voted similarly to how they had voted in 2012. Now, some have high Latino populations but many are rural and white. I have two inter-related hypotheses.

    1. There is a massive tourism industry here and of course Agro-business. So lots of these places aren’t that poorly off and do quite well. There isn’t the same level of economic deprivation.

    2. The tourism industry means that rural folks come into contact with their fellow urban and suburban Californians far more often. And probably come into contact with far more foreigners than rural folks in the upper midwest or south. So perhaps that leas to less resentment/less alienation.

    In that regard, you might be right. I don’t think it’s applicable to the rest of the state.

  6. @OldNat

    To completely ignore the point I’m making, and imply that I am a troll, is also of concern. You can be a slippery eel to pin down in a debate at the best of times, but I think on this occasion your Scottish Nationalist prism has prevented you from even seeing the question, never mind answering it.

  7. TOH

    No-one is disputing the very real importance of Elizabeth Tudor. In many ways an excelent monarch, even if not above persecuting religous minorities in the cause of Anglicanism.

    Old Nat’s points is, I surmise, another: simply that it is wrong to assume that English history and English monarchs are the be all and end all. He suggests (indirectly) that if people such as yourself wish to promote the UK as a viable option, then non-English aspects of history within these Islands need to be understood and appreciated and affirmed BY EVERYONE, and not just ‘the locals’. So, for example, it would be good for a fair (probably from your perspective an ‘unfair’) amount of Scottish, Irish and Welsh history (seen from a non-English point of view, if possible) to be taught in English schools so that people in England may have a better understanding of what the constituent parts of the UK are and what historical baggage they carry with them.

    Candy signally fails to repsond positively to this request. In actual fact, I am beginning to suspect that Candy is a ‘fifth columnist’ ultraScottish Nationalist who is trying to enrage the more moderate versions, such as Old Nat and myself. Candy has been successful in this on many occasions in the past, as you may have noticed.

  8. @Candy – 12.57 a.m.

    I for one am not the least bit ‘obsessed’ by Mary Stewart. Dreadful woman, poor reader of what was going on, absolute idiotic idea to ‘escape’ to England. And yes, much of the template for modern Britain was laid down in her generation. But James V did a similar job in Scotland a generation earlier, though obviously on a smaller scale.

    My complaint with your reading of history is that it suggests only English history matters. How shall you understand James VI unless you understand Scotland, for example? And the civil wars of the 1640s cannot be understood without a thorough knowledge of Scotland’s internal debates. The English situation was radically influenced by the Scottish involvement – as was the case vice versa with Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland. To see things from only one perspective is a rather limited and limiting ambition, don’t you think?

  9. for ‘her’ read ‘Elizabeth Tudor’
    Sorry.

  10. socallibral,
    “In fact, the whole country is improving economically. ”

    Politicians here forever go on about the definition of poverty, that it is relative to the national average, not an absolute number. I think this reflects what people really think. It isnt are they richer than their grandfather, but how do they compare to others in society. That exit poll had a big number for Trump supporters believeing the country is doing well. I think that is half the point really, it is seeing others -maybe in California – doing well but in your locality they are not.

  11. @Candy

    “Blair and Cameron who started pointless foreign wars to prove their machodom, and failed horribly in their endeavours.”

    Both Blair and Cameron have been in the pockets of the Saudi Sunni Muslim oil rich Cabal plus for some reason Kazakhstan. All of the wars these two fought were in the interests of this group.

    The current war in Syria is over a gas pipeline which Qatar wanted to run across Syria Assad refused and gave permission to Iran instead.

    White ISIS (Saudi) inserted Black ISIS into Syria and then we all joined in to help the Cabal remove Assad.

    As soon as Cameron got his parliamentary permission to recommence bombing of ISIS, he announced his real intention was actually to bomb Assads forces.

    Given that the Assad family has been in power since the 1970s, and it was one of the most peacefu,l mutli religious, tolerant countries in the region, you have to ask yourself why now?

    Once you realise that our leaders including the Democrats currently in power are in receipt of huge amounts of cash from this group, then all the pieces of the jigsaw suddenly fall into place.

  12. Renzi has repeated his commitment to resign if he loses the Constitutional Referendum on Dec 4.

  13. @ Danny

    “In Scotland even people who do not believe in Scottish independence support the Scottish nationalist party, because they reckon it is the only one looking out for especially Scottish interest. Do you reckon California could go for a ‘California unites’ party? It might free the democrats in congress to run a party line more conciliatory with the states losing out? Or are matters not nearly so polarised as in Scotland?”

    Actually, if we developed such a party and it was successful, it’d kill the Democratic Party because they’d no longer have an ATM machine. That said…..they have an ATM machine in California too. If that were threatened (and the more Orange County results trickle in), that could cause them great problems.

    The thing is, as we see less than two weeks in, the Trump transition is already displaying great levels of corruption and conflicts of interest at a level honestly unseen. Meanwhile, he’s promising to deport 2-3 million people (maybe not quite the 12 million he promised during the campaign). Kelly Anne Conway, apparently unaware of the First Amendment, came out to threaten to sue Harry Reid. And Trump’s top people are openly talking about placing all Muslim citizens into registries and perhaps locking them all in camps. As one said on FOX News, there is precedent. We locked up the Japanese during World War II! (I’m not making this up).

    It has a lot of people concerned. So I’m thinking about strategy. I have to attend the CDP Eboard meeting this weekend and there are a lot of people who want to focus on progressivism. This is great but there may be places where we have to put it away or put it aside. There are larger principles at place. This celebration of the electoral college is really sickening.

  14. i found Candy’s hypothesis (though presented as a dogmatic assertion) that the perceived success of Elizabeth 1 as a ruler has made women rulers more acceptable in the modern UK useful as a thought-starts

    It’s actually moderately testable. Do those countries currently or recently led by a woman tend to have strong women leaders in their history?

    In general, I think the newer is no. When I was a lad, the only two notable female leaders were Golda Meir and Mrs Bandaranaike; I don’t think there’s any history of strong matriarchs in either Jewish/Israeli or Sri Lankan (Tamil?) history. More recently, I can’t think of any precursors for Angela Merkel (I can’t imagine many Germans would be swayed by Maria Theresa). And Catherine the Great hasn’t produced any elected Russian successors.

    On the other hand, right-wing French people seem happy with the idea of a female President, despite the absence of any regal precedents (Marie-Antoinette would surely dispose people the other way). Perhaps Jeanne d’Arc would do as a substitute .

    Closer to home, Scots seem very happy with female leadership, despite the lack of previous success stories (except maybe Victoria? But hardly a strong leader: more ‘stern mother of the nation’).

    I’m no historian and will happily defer to better knowledge than my own, but at the very least I think we have to fall back on that useful and appropriate Scots verdict: not proven.

  15. ” the best way of judging public opinion on Brexit is probably not to ask about individual policies, but to test some plausible scenarios – when it comes to it, people will judge the deal as a whole, not as the sum of its parts.”
    A proposition based on stated policies on immigration does not seem, on the evidence of job creation – in which a massive majority of jobs in the past year in the latest figures, were filled by people not born in the UK – to match a reality which is imposed by the economy – by industrial demand and by the policies of private industry, which demands accessible and qualified labour, rather than by public policy.
    The likelihood is that the economy will continue to expand in the private sector (the EC 2015 report based on Treasury figures. These had this favourable expansion, and that of rising GDP and pensions, continuing in projections for the next thirty-five years, and were based on a majority of new labour supply from immigration.
    These projections did not anticipate a brake imposed by Government. The evidence of the UK Commission on Employment nd Wages, Working Futures report, suggests that such a brake would reduce jobs and wages rather thn the contrary.
    These aspects of migration were apparent from the eu and ONS stats and from statements and projections of the business sector in the run up to the referendum, but were ignored by Brexiteers. Can the government credibly now do so in any scenario or deal put before Parliament. Even if they attempt to do so, building policy essentially around immigration control conducted as a national system flies against the evidence that it is economies – the UK economy within a EU and international market – which drives migration.. Such policy will be diametrically in contrast to an EU planned development of an economy and labour market based on – as I believe it will be – external investments and checks external to the EU – and “no borders” within the EU as an overriding policy which the EC believes represents demographic and labour market reality in the coming century..
    That I believe is the political and economic reality which demographic movement and economic inequalities between the EU and the developing world in particular, lasting throughout the next century, will bring about in the relation of the UK with the EU – driven, that is, by economic development within the EU and member countries (of which the UK continues to be organically one) rather than by legislation or policies.
    In that light the falsities contained in the Leave campaign are proposed to be continued and cemented in Brexit we don’t know the consequences but they will become apparent in the reality of people’s job prospects and welfare, and in tax take, services and pensions – not in the messages sent out as the basis of policies on immigration control, however politically packaged.

  16. JOHN B

    “So, for example, it would be good for a fair (probably from your perspective an ‘unfair’) amount of Scottish, Irish and Welsh history (seen from a non-English point of view, if possible) to be taught in English schools so that people in England may have a better understanding of what the constituent parts of the UK are and what historical baggage they carry with them.”

    You totally misjudge me in that post John. I do not think it would be unfair and I do think it would be a good idea if Scottish, Irish and Welsh History was taught in English schools. I think that History is taught very badly in many schools in England and I think we would both agree that understanding history from as many perspectives as possible is important for understanding the World as it is today.

    What I was pointing out to OLDNAT was that Elizabeth 1 is seen as a very significant figure in England in part because of the way history is taught in England.

  17. Whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, the referendum result has created great challenges for our system of government in that most MPs voted remain and therefore presumably believe that leaving the EU is against the best interests of the UK. It is quite possible that this will continue to be the case even after the next general election.

    Of course, a majority of MPs are now likely to support invoking Article 50 because a) “the will of the people must be respected” (even if individual MPs might disagree with it), & b) this is the official policy of the two main parties in the H of C.

    I suspect that on the EU we have arrived at a situation analogous to that relating to reform of the House of Lords – ie there is a majority in the H of C for the principle, but not for any one conceivable method of carrying it through. Hence the government’s apparent wish to negotiate exit terms with minimum scrutiny and then present the House with a deal that is effectively a fait accompli. TM’s hope must be that by that stage there will be other things to worry about and a majority of MPs will just be relieved to have the whole thing resolved, however unsatisfactorily.

  18. NICHOLAS

    “Hence the government’s apparent wish to negotiate exit terms with minimum scrutiny and then present the House with a deal that is effectively a fait accompli.”

    I really do not see a problem with that. It seems an entirely rational view on how to procede in negotiating a treaty. Of course the EU may not be prepared to negotiate sensibly in which we just wait until the two year period after triggering Art 50 comes to an end. As it happens I think the EU will negotiate, and are preparing for it, with a negotiating team, and in secret as are the UK government. Sensible approach on both sides, open discussion of strategy and tactics would be negotiating lunacy for either.

    Like I suspect a majority of UK voters, I want the Government to get on and negotiate the best treaty they can whilst meeting the will of the British people to leave the EU, and that really was to leave IMO.

  19. THE OTHER HOWARD

    My real point is that I don’t think there is any deal that the government can conceivably negotiate that will satisfy a majority of MPs or, probably, a majority of the electorate either.

  20. OH: ” I want the Government to get on and negotiate the best treaty they can whilst meeting the will of the British people to leave the EU, and that really was to leave IMO.”

    Fair enough. The possible problem I envisage from your pov is that the ‘best treaty they can’ may, like Cameron’s deal, look pretty inadequate when it finally sees the light of day. If polls at the time indicate that a majority think it unsatisfactory, a majority of the HoC may be emboldened to vote against it. Then what? Status quo ante, I suppose. Or allow the two-year guillotine to fall and procure hard Brexit against the wishes of people and parliament.

  21. Somerjohn

    If polls at the time indicate that a majority think it unsatisfactory, a majority of the HoC may be emboldened to vote against it.

    Indeed, in which case I think there would be a General Election.

    However will the polls show that? So far support for Brexit has been solid.

    If there was an election I think that the voters will as usual vote for the party with the best leader and the part considered best at running the economy.

    The latter will be especially important in these circumstances as we will leaving the EU whatever happens.

    On the basis of the imformation we have now I suspect a Conservative Government would be returned with a mandate to deliever the deal they have achieved and probably with an increased majority.

  22. Somerjohn

    Should be “party” not part.

  23. Nicholas

    You forget the power of the media, if we get a poor deal or no deal that will be overwelmingly reported as the EU’s fault. As many remainers have posted the British have have been told repeatedly over the EU that the EU is against our interest by much of the media.

    This will have an effect on how voters will vote in thse circumstances. Hence my post indicating that I think the Conservatives would win an election with a mandate in the circumstances you and he envisage.

  24. TOH

    I suspect that a GE in that situation would present the electorate with a choice of ‘vote Conservative for the deal we’ve negotiated’ or ‘vote Labour/LD/SNP to stay as we are or negotiate a better deal’.

    The temptation for L/LD/SNP to form a united front to bring down the Tories would be strong and in my view probably successful.

  25. THE OTHER HOWARD

    You may well be right.

    I just think that it’s a bit daft to have arrived at a situation where – as with H of L reform – virtually everyone agrees it should happen but there is no agreement as to how.

  26. SOMERJOHN

    If Art.50 is not reversable then stay as we are is not an option. So it would be a vote in the circumstances I suggested. As I say on the basis of the information we have at the moment I think the Conservatives would walk it.

    You really think we would get Corbyn in those circumstances. I think your joking.

  27. Nicholas

    On H o L reform i agree with you. The Government have missed a trick, but of course they are rather busy at the moment.

  28. If as some here seem to suggest the government tries to keep parliament in the dark over Brexit, it will become the focus of debate for the foreseeable future.

    In such a Scenario the debate may well focus on MP’s saying that they will only vote for A50 if the government tells us clearly and we debate what our objectives are and assertions like “The Best Possible Deal” and “Brexit means Brexit” just don’t cut it.

    Parliament will want to know before we agree to A50 what we want with the key the balance between Single Market Access and Control of Immigration.

    If the Government calls an election on that then the issue isn’t Brexit or not it’s, between the Governments right to negotiate a deal it wants whether the people like it or not or whether Parliament after debate should decide what we want from the negotiations in line with the publics wishes or not.

    The focus isn’t on whether we leave or not but on what we want afterwards.

    There are different views on what our post Brexit relationship and objectives should be with the EU after Brexit, not least within the Conservative Party, government and it seems Cabinet, but MP’s demand is that we should debate that and decide it openly rather than have the PM decide it in secret.

    If May ends up negotiating a deal that the population doesn’t like the Polls go out the window.

    Peter.

  29. Breaking news……………….

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38027230

  30. The crossbreaks from the Mori poll are interesting. In England the Tories have a 9% lead – the same margin as for GB as a whole. In May 2015 the Tories lead Labour by 9.5% in England which means that Mori is implying a tiny 0.25% swing from Tory to Labour there. Were that to happen it would result in 3 Labour gains – which would halve the Tory majority to 6.
    On the other hand, the Scotland crossbreak has the Tories on 37% and the SNP on 38%.- which I suspect stretches credulity a bit!

  31. @SOMERJOHN

    “The temptation for L/LD/SNP to form a united front to bring down the Tories would be strong and in my view probably successful.”

    I have argued until I was blue in the face for a ‘popular front’ against Torydom, but Labour is too concerned with its own unrealistic ambitions to do anything about it.

  32. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

    That’s £369M to refurbish an OAPs house that could be better spent on the NHS.

  33. TOH

    Thank you for yours of 10.21. Very helpful in understanding your view. The problem, I think, is that the ‘England is the only thing that matters’ approach of Candy can sometimes be attributed to others as well, especially if they appear (at first glance) to be putting forward similar ideas.

    History has always been one of my favourite subjects – and especially medieval history (although I’m no expert, as you will understand from my posts!).

  34. ON HISTORY EDUCATION

    It may surprise some people to know that, certainly in Wales, the GCSE syllabus in history gives choices to study one of the following for 25% of the marks:
    Popular movements in Wales and England, 1815-1848
    Wales and England in the early twentieth century, 1890-1919
    The USA: a nation of contrasts, 1910-1929
    Germany in transition, 1919-1947
    China under Mao Zedong, 1949-1976
    The next two sections 25% marks each require one topic to be chose from these lists:
    (1) The Elizabethan Age, 1558-1603
    Depression, war and recovery in Wales and England, 1930-1951
    Austerity, Affluence and Discontent in the United Kingdom, 1951-1979
    Russia in transition, 1905-1924
    Changes in South Africa, 1948-1994
    (2) The development of Germany, 1919-1991
    Developing relations in Palestine, Israel and the Middle East, 1919-2000
    The development of the USA, 1930-2000
    The development of Wales, 1900-2000
    Finally an in depth study of one topic not chosen in the other three.
    In practical terms, at my daughter’s school, this led to her studying American History and Nazi Germany.
    I am Welsh her mother is Irish: we are doing our best to educate her about UK history as we can because clearly the schools aren’t

  35. @Graham
    Not only that, but the waning of UKIP and the recovery of the Lib Dems shown in recent polls would potentially push two or three seats to the LibDems
    Based on the most recent polling, May would have to be very brave to risk an election…

    @ToH
    I guess the outcome of any post-negotiation election depends on a list of things that are currently imponderable:
    – how much the ‘meme’ of government incompetence is accepted; it seems to be gaining some traction currently
    – how much the failure to achieve better terms can be blamed on the EU; a competing meme to the first…
    – where Labour position themselves on the Brexit spectrum; I guess they will pitch for the ‘we accept the result but the negotiation has been a shambles that has let the British people down’ line, which leaves space for the Lib Dems on the pro-Europe end of the spectrum.

    I wouldn’t assume a Tory walkover in this situation – there are many barbs to throw at them, even if they have the bulk of the media in their pockets. However you could also be right and the Tory’s would gain a big majority – it’s hard to gauge at this remove fro any actual event.

  36. There is, I think, a possible scenario whereby TM’s preferred deal is one that Hammond & Johnson are agreeable to, but Davis, Fox, other Brexiteers & many who voted leave do not like.

    What happens then, given that such a deal might well command a majority not just in the H of C but also within the parliamentary Conservative Party?

  37. Graham

    Re: Scottish cross-breaks

    I think a strong Tory showing in Scotland is quite possible. Labour are failing to provide a coherent alternative to the SNP in Edinburgh or the Tories in London, for those on the left; therefore those who have maintaining Scotland in the UK as tbheir main priority have only the Tories as a viable alternative.

    I remember the days when the Scots Unionists drew on the votes of many skilled craftsmen and working class men and women. The social and religious situation has changed, but with the SNP still showing little or no sign of losing support, despite many years of not altogether successful government, what alternative do non-nationalist people have?

  38. WB

    No ‘real’ history, then! (I mean nothing medieval) :-(

    Tancred 12.27

    Re: Breaking news.

    The court is, of course, 100% correct in its verdict. The devolution settlements all have ECJ, EU and such like as intrinsic elements. And it was part of the devoolution settlement that any changes would only come with the agreement of the devolved assemblies.

    So any plan to leave the EU must include bringing the devolved assemblies into the discussions. I have always believed that the only way for Westminster to keep total control of the EU thing was by changing the devolution laws.

    Blair obviously either never considered the present situation developing, or was extremely long-sighted and thought of a good way of putting the breaks on a very small Tory majority.
    (Not often I praise Blair, but there we are….)

  39. @JOHN B

    I suspect this happened by accident rather than by design. Had Blair really waned to cement the EU into our constitution, he would have put through constitutional reform to prevent a ‘simple majority’ referendum from stopping our membership.

  40. Interesting poll, which shows that most people want to have their cake and eat it. No surprise there as this is normal human behaviour, and currently the government is encouraging it by refusing to say anything at all about what it actually wants from the negotiation (other than everything).

    The problem will come once the phony war is over, and the government has to come out into the open about its prioirities in the negotiation. This is certain to create more intra-party problems, and to firm up public views. As pointed out above calling a general election would certainly require such clarification, which the government clearly doesn’t want.

    It will be very interesting to watch public opinion once there is something to have an opinion about.

  41. The more information i see on the Brexit process, the legal and political challenges, the more i think that Brexit is unlikely to happen.

    I really can’t see the Supreme Court deciding that Royal Prerogative can be used by Government, trying to bypass Parliament because of a non binding referendum result. It is quite likely that the Judges will conclude that a full Parliamentary bill must be passed setting out the full position of Government, covering the process, the broad principles of negotiation with the EU and also legal constituitional issues that need to be addressed.

    If i am correct, it could take at least a year to pass any such comprehensive bill through Parliament and in that time, there is going to be a lot of discussion about all of the issues and consequences. No doubt there will be changes due to elections in mainland EU countries and there might be a case for a new EU treaty. If there is a new treaty, it could cause a pause in the Brexit process, as Government sees whether it can negotiate changes to freedom of movement etc.

    Many of the 52% who voted leave will be unhappy, but if the country does change its mind or circumstances change, then Government has to react to it.

  42. Discussing the relevance of Queen Lizzie 1st (of England) to modern gender politics is stretching history a little too far, I think, but I do believe @Candy has the germ of an idea that is worth exploring.

    While Elizabeth 1st is probably the most successful monarch in our royal lineage, we have also had Victoria and now Elizabeth 2nd, who are the longest serving and who both occupy a higher recognition factor than the first Elizabeth among current voters.

    One issue in the US elections was the subtle discussion of the role of the ‘First Husband’. We have a current very good example of a fairly useless male, mooning about in his wife’s wake, saying vaguely offensive things and generally entertaining people in a more or less harmless way. The monarchy has given us a taste of a female head of state with a redundant male appendage, so while we don’t vote for our monarchy, we do at least get a taste for females in the top job.

    However, I wonder whether on top of this, another reason why we seem far less troubled by a female elected leader is because we have a representative system – we never voted for Thatcher or May.

    Over the years we did get used to seeing quite a few women in top political jobs, and while there is still blatant discrimination in politics, we did at least get to see women MPs and ministers at work. Our PM is then selected through MPs in parliament, and while there will remain elements of misogyny at work in that process, it is a filter which can help propel women to the top job away from the more subtle electoral prejudice. Indeed, some Tory MP’s backed Thatcher for the leadership because they thought she would be ‘easier to manage as she was a woman’.

    In the US, because people are voting directly for a single person, perhaps gender based perceptions have a greater potential to affect the result?

    I would be the first to admit that this is a far from perfect idea, but the combination of female monarchs, MPs and Ministers, along with our system of electing our PM, may have been part of the reasons why we are on our second female PM while the Americans have struggled to elect a single female president.

  43. @alec

    “While Elizabeth 1st is probably the most successful monarch in our royal lineage….”

    Not really. She lived a long time and succeeded in keeping the throne and the kingdom intact. Beyond that her achievements were few. She was chronically indecisive which was one major reason why she did little but avoided major mistakes. There were many for more significant English monarchs including her grandfather Henry VII.

  44. @John B

    “Candy signally fails to repsond positively to this request. In actual fact, I am beginning to suspect that Candy is a ‘fifth columnist’ ultraScottish Nationalist who is trying to enrage the more moderate versions, such as Old Nat and myself. Candy has been successful in this on many occasions in the past, as you may have noticed.”

    ————

    Lol, it’s not hard to be successful in this regard when dealing with those desperate to seize upon and amplify any error as some massive slight, and failing any suitable thing to quibble over, to try and fashion summat out of nothing.

    You guys used to even complain about commentators slipups in the heat of the action, or when people had the temerity to quote Salmond, before going on to quote Cameron yourself a few minutes later. The hyped victimhood was relentless, culminating in the comedy of Couper complaining bitterly that to simply disagree with her was some massive unfair insult. Until it was pointed out that she herself was disagreeing with others…

    Picking on a lack of awareness of Scots history is a gift that keeps on giving, because it’s unlikely English peeps will know as much as Scots about Scots. Scots on here have made errors in understanding English affairs before now, but they don’t get hassled as much about it.

    In the old days before devolution, before Barnett, you had rather more substantial stuff to complain about, like poll tax etc., so it’s progress if the issue is now knowing history in the Tudor era…

  45. @Alec

    “While Elizabeth 1st is probably the most successful monarch in our royal lineage, we have also had Victoria and now Elizabeth 2nd, who are the longest serving and who both occupy a higher recognition factor than the first Elizabeth among current voters.”

    ————-

    Yes, this is all very well Alec, but what does this have to do with Scots history?? Don’t you understand that Scots history is a bit different? Don”t you understand??!!!

    \nationalist victimhood

  46. @HIRETON

    “Not really. She lived a long time and succeeded in keeping the throne and the kingdom intact. Beyond that her achievements were few. She was chronically indecisive which was one major reason why she did little but avoided major mistakes. There were many for more significant English monarchs including her grandfather Henry VII.”

    ———–

    Also she didn’t make the union happen….

  47. @Alec

    And Elizabeth Tudor is not, techinically, in present day Royal LIneage at all, as her father’s ‘line’ ceased with her death. In dynastic terms she was a failure – a ‘dead end’. HenryVII’s ‘line’ carried on via his daughter Margaret, who married James IV. ‘Royal Lineage’ took a very dim view of the second and third generations of the Tudor royals.
    The Stewarts did much better, survivng at least for the next four generations until the death of Anne in 1709. Then it’s back to James VI’s daughter, Elizabeth, to follow the line down to the present queen.

    And I notice that no-one has yet had a go at answering my question as to who was the first Stewart monarch!

    @Tancred

    Yes, I tend to agree. But there are such things as ‘happy accidents’!

  48. Carfrew
    I think it is racism of the vilest kind to criticise or poke fun at our Scottish comrades in any way at all. It makes me ashamed to be English that you can be sarcastic about the noble kilt-wearing porridge-eating chaps.

  49. “And I notice that no-one has yet had a go at answering my question as to who was the first Stewart monarch!”

    ————

    It’s like that sometimes. Try asking Indy peeps about oil prices!!!

  50. @Pete B

    You just don’t want to answer John B’s vital question…

1 2 3 4 9