The Times have a new YouGov poll this morning, carried out after Theresa May’s Brexit speech. Overall, it looks as if the PM has passed her first Brexit test – a majority of the public support the sort of Brexit she is seeking to achieve. Whether they support the sort of Brexit she actually manages to get other EU countries to agree to once negotiations are complete is, of course, a different matter.

YouGov asked respondents if they agreed with some of the key negotiation points May set out: many of these were uncontroversial (an overwhelming majority of people wanted UK control of immigration, an open border with Ireland, the rights of existing immigrations to be protected and continued co-operation on security). Most of these are obvious though – the two more controversial points were the confirmation that Britain would leave the single market and the customs union. A majority of people supported both, but it was split very much among pro-EU and anti-EU lines: a huge majority of Leave voters thought it was the right thing to do, but Remain voters tended to think it was wrong to leave the single market and were split over the customs union.

Looking at a list of specific measures is not necessarily a good way of measuring support for May’s stance anyway. Most of us won’t tot up the individual details, people tend to judge the overall package. Asked about May’s Brexit plan as a whole, there was a clear thumbs up. 55% think it would be good for Britain; only 19% think it would be bad. 62% think it would respect the referendum result and by 53% to 26% people say that they would be happy with the outcome.

While people like what May is seeking, that doesn’t mean they think it is actually achievable. While the public do express confidence in May’s negotiating ability (by 47% to 38%), only 20% of people think that other EU countries will agree to what she wants. Only time will tell how the public react to whatever EU deal May actually manages to get.

The poll also asked voting intention. Topline figures were CON 42%, LAB 25%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, putting the Tories back up to a seventeen point lead. As ever it is only one poll, so don’t read too much into that huge lead: it may be that May setting out a clearer route forward for Brexit (and the good press she got yesterday) has given the Tories a boost… or it may just be normal random variation. Full tabs are here


584 Responses to “YouGov polling on Theresa May’s Brexit speech”

1 6 7 8 9 10 12
  1. @BFR

    Don’t worry I am not suggesting you’re a victim of or perpetrator of the spin. Just that spinning of election results goes a lot deeper than embarassed looking party representatives choking on their words on BBC News in the early hours.

    The national polls, which are appalling for Labour, would point to a dead heat in Copeland, and a narrow Labour win in Stoke.

    Holding with reasonable comfort would indeed be a good night for Labour, compared to the walking nightmare of the opinion polls.

  2. *waking nightmare

    Although I imagine quite a few party activists will have done some walking through the nightmare too.

  3. @Neil A
    Ah, then we are on the same page…which is nice!

  4. Honestly, if it was a good night for Labour, it would be because noone was all that interested in either by-election because it was blatantly obvious that they were going to hold both, with an increased majority, on a derisory turnout.

  5. (In absolute terms I mean)

  6. Just caught up and this interested me:

    ‘Nigel Farage to get a role on Fox News’

    They must want him as a token lefty to provide a little bit of balance

  7. Allan

    Can I have some of what you are taking please?

    Lib Dems coming second in these by-elections! Good joke!

    Any increase on 2015 will show progress compared to all the other Labour held seats this Parliament

  8. By election spin?
    IMO, ofc…

    Labour win both, disaster averted and therefore relatively good…but that’s relative to pretty bad times for them. They increase their vote share much in either though….that’d be hell of a pleasant surprise. They lose either, disaster.

    Cons win one, success. Not amazing, in line with their polling lead…..but certainly look great for them, something to celebrate. Unless their vote share completely disappears to lib-dems &/or UKIP, I don’t see failure for them. Labour seats, they’re in government….if they do nothing, they can easily write it off. Almost certain that the outcome of these’ll be either Lab Struggling or “Lab can’t Cope”, I really can’t see the outcome of this being anything other than good media for Cons…though strategically they may worry at a very strong lib-deming.

    UKIP win one, success. Actually amazing. Even coming close would look quite good. Their vote share falls in stoke, failure. Copeland pretty much irrelevant, if they’re giving everything to Stoke?

    Lib-dems have been talking up the anti-brexit stuff a bit much I reckon, if they end up 4th/5th in both again it’ll look bad. On the other hand, they don’t have to come close to actually challenging in order to claim success…they’re very leavey areas, a distant 3rd would be respectable enough.

  9. @Peter Cairns – a rather brilliant summary of Trump, if I may say so.

    I remain aghast that so many people are being completely conned by the man into thinking that he really cares about Britain. As another example, after trashing Japan frequently during the campaign, Trump met their PM, with his aides being told by Trump’s team ” …that Trump’s previous remarks should not be taken literally.”

    I’m not saying that Trump is a buffoon – he isn’t – but the people who believe him really are.

  10. Trump doesn’t bother me. He has limited influence over us, and hist term is only four years anyway. His election was a fluke, as close to an electoral fraud as it is possible without it actually being a fraud.

    The reason Trump was elected is that the Democrats were represented by Hillary Clinton. Sanders was by far the better candidate but he lacked support with ethnic groups.

  11. @Alec

    Everyone knows perfectly well he doesn’t care about Britain. He cares about himself – and because he has so identified with Brexit it is possible that we can exploit his ego into thinking that Trump can’t be great unless Brexit is a success.

    Whether this strategy works or not is a whole other thing. But it is worth a shot, what have we got to lose? At worst it will force the Europeans to the negotiating table with us as they fear Trump putting tariffs on their stuff. At best, we’ll get deals with both the USA and Europe

    P.S. His antipathy to both the Germans and Japanese is longstanding. Here is an interview he gave Playboy magazine in 1990:

    http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-donald-trump-1990

    quote

    Nothing wrong with ego. People need ego, whole nations need ego. I think our country needs more ego, because it is being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies; i.e., Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc. They have literally outegotized this country, because they rule the greatest money machine ever assembled and it’s sitting on our backs. Their products are better because they have so much

    We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it weren’t for us. Our “allies” are making billions screwing us.

    end quote

    He hasn’t changed his views since then, It is worth reading the whole interview.

  12. @ WOOD

    Agree with almost all of what you said, except that I actually I think it would be amazing for the Cons if they won Copeland.

    I know their polling lead is in itself extremely unusual at this stage of a government/parliament, so if that’s accurate we are bound to see some strange reflections in other results, but even the rare governments that have good polling leads don’t win opposition by-elections, I believe it’s happened only four times since Labour became a party of government and three of those have asterisks by them to say “weird circumstances”.

    So I think it would be astonishing if it happened, hence what is perhaps Labour’s attempt to start softening the ground now.

  13. @Candy

    It’s also worth noting that such sentiments aren’t entirely without a grain of truth.

  14. @Neil A

    Yes. He doesn’t mention either Britain or France because those two countries have always paid their way security wise, and Britain has gone to war along the Americans several times too.

    I thought his mention of Saudi, all the way back in 1990, was also interesting, They should be feeling worried. along the Germans and co.

    As for Germany: they have trashed the southern european economies with their sado-austerity, and get no sales there anymore. France used to be their #1 market, but is shrivelling under the force of the euro. China is slowing down and Germany hasn’t managed to make headway into India. They currently rely on selling to the USA (#1 market) and UK (#3 market). If the Americans put tariffs on them, then the Germans either come to terms with us, or go into recession. As a way of forcing the Europeans to the negotiating table, Trump is a godsend for us.

  15. Candy
    “If the Americans put tariffs on them, then the Germans either come to terms with us, or go into recession.”

    That’s an interesting point. And as they will be the only significant net contributor to the EU after we leave that could mean problems for the whole EU. I can see the Germans putting massive pressure on to change the system so that other countries contribute more. Will that then encourage those countries to leave?

    In an odd way it’s a similar situation to the USA. Whereas the Americans defend many countries for little return, the Germans will be paying for a lot of other countries with little return (except the satisfaction of having finally won the war by peaceful means).

  16. Just on the Trump speech and the German guy. According to the WSJ, the White House confirmed that the speech was written by Bannon.

  17. So this happened today.

    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Thousands-Womens-March-Los-Angeles-411409495.html

    They were expected 20,000 to 30,000 to show up. Instead, well over 750,000 people showed up. It was highly exhilarating.

  18. @Pete B

    It is entirely possible that Germany might decide the EU isn’t worth it and exit. These types of relationships only work if all sides are benefitting.

    So in the post-war era the USA had a vested interest in rehabilitating Europe. They were running trade surpluses throughour the 1940s and 50’s and Europe was an important enough market to justify Marshall Aid, which the Europeans benefitted from. win-win. The same applied to security – the Americans didn’t want their market overrun by the communists and the Europeans didn’t want to be invaded by commie nut-jobs. So NATO provided security, the Europeans were risking their lives as they would have been the theatre of war, and the Americans risking money. But Europe gained security and the Americans had their market in good shape. So win-win again.

    The relationship no longer works for the Americans. They don’t sell much to Europe so there doesn’t seem any point anymore,

    The same goes for the UK – we joined the EEC when there was no GATT or WTO and tariffs were high. But in 2016, our trade with Europe was shrinking thanks to the eurozone crisis, the Europeans were refusing to open their services markets to us, and we were paying them lots of money and hosting their unemployed, It ceased to be a win for us and we terminated the relationship.

    Germany currently believes that the money it pays into the EU is offset by the trade and sales it gets in return. It’s companies have been very successful in taking over in eastern europe in terms of supermarkets, consumer goods and so on. And there are outright exports. But Southern Europe is no longer buying stuff, France is struggling and the UK, a big consumer market, is leaving. At some point it will not be worth the money and aggro, and they will leave as well.

    It is always people who pay the most money who leave. The recipients never do no matter how much they are struggling.

  19. All this talk about Trump is boring. Trump will be a one term president and then the madness will stop and revert to normality, which means a Democratic president. It’s an astonishing fluke that Trump became president with a minority of the popular vote – probably a 1 in 1,000 chance. It will not be repeated.

  20. @ Peter Cairns

    “What Trump says to Gove or farage tells us nothing, he knows what they want to hear, tells them that and they sign up to whatever he offers….Hook line and sinker!”

    Well, it also shows you his complete lack of knowledge. He asks UKIP officials to fix things for him in Scotland. Even though they have no power to do so.

    My biggest fear though right now is that Dump will remove U.S. troops from Norway, the Baltic States, and other parts of Eastern Europe and will signal to Putin that Russians have free reign to invade and do whatever they please. One of President Obama’s last acts was to move U.S. troops to where they were needed. There’s no real check there. So whether Dump is actively colluding with the Russians and is doing a return favor, he’s a paid agent of the Russians (and btw, he wouldn’t be the first U.S. elected official on the Russian payroll), or is being blackmailed by the Russians, it’s quite a frightening prospect for international security.

  21. @Andrew111 “I was depressed the British voters had ruined the European Project,”

    Polls were 2-1 against joining the EEC in 1971-1972 but Heath chose to ignore that and take us in without a Referendum on a fundemental change in our constitution and rights.

    People like Benn,Powell and others warned him the British would never stand for it once they realised the true destination.

    The damage caused by Brexit was caused by the UK being taken in by EUphiles in the first place.

    Can you imagine the UK applying to join the EU now if we had been independent for the last 40 years?

  22. Sea Change

    “Can you imagine the UK applying to join the EU now if we had been independent for the last 40 years?”

    Unsurprisingly, I find the usage of “independent” by many Brexiteers an interesting one.

    Your question is very similar to that asked by some in Scotland – “Can you imagine Scotland applying to join the UK now if we had been independent for the last 310 years?”

    Is a country “independent” if it has a trade agreement with other countries, or is a member of the UN, or the International Postal Union (even North Korea is a member of that!)

    Making binding (even if cancellable) arrangements with other countries reduces “absolute” independence, and involves some pooling of sovereignty.

    “Independent”, in whatever way you are using the term, doesn’t translate well into Scottish politics, for example, where it most commonly is used to mean the power to join (or not) pooling arrangements with other sovereignties.

    It is one of those terms that may have a particular meaning in one polity – that is utterly irrelevant in others.

    As to your actual question (and similar manifestations of it elsewhere), alternative histories can be fun to play around with, but they are basically pointless.

    We are all where we are, not in some imagined alternative universe.

  23. @Candy

    It will be very interesting to see what Germany does without the UK there. If you put yourself in Germany’s shoes, there must be great concern about what they are going to have to shoulder.

    Also thanks for the links on Trump.

    Clearly he has some long held beliefs but I also think Peter Cairns makes the valid point that he does say things that he knows won’t make it into the final executable contract.

    The trouble is deciding what is expendable to him and what isn’t. His identity and high self-regard I say will not be expendable and therefore I agree he will want a trade deal with Brexit UK and close relations.

    For this reason I said at the time of the US Election that whether you like Trump or not, it is better for the UK at this moment in our history that we have him in the oval office and not Clinton.

  24. @OLDNAT

    A predictable response. We voted as the UK with every member having the same one vote which had equal weight. And it happened that regionally different parts of that polity voted more one way than the other. Any other interpretation is SNP spin as you surely must be aware.

    My point to Andrew111 before you tried to take it down the Scottish independence route was that we are reaping the consequences of that fateful decision in 1972 by the very same type of EUphiles who are now screeching at the damage we are inflicting on the project.

  25. Re: Copeland

    It surely must be pointed out how disastrous Labour’s position must be nationally if they are already trying to massage expectations.

    They have held this seat since the 1930s!

    And considering that the Tories while in government may actually take this seat (I predict they will) is frankly astounding.

    That’s happened only two times in the last 60 years.

  26. Sea Change

    That’s not a response to what I said. It’s just a rant!

    You actually demonstrate rather well, that the same words used in different polities can have different meanings – and that (sadly) some in every polity will totally fail to comprehend that their usage lacks universality.

    I think we all understand that you don’t like your country being a member of the EU.

    But “your country” has exercised its “independence” by deciding to leave that union.

    So what meaning do you attach to the term “independence”? By definition, you can’t mean the unilateral right to withdraw from union – so what did you mean?

    Surely, you can’t mean that a country that has the sovereignty to withdraw from a union that it voluntarily entered into, is somehow not independent?

    That you attempted to bring irrelevant party politics into this, suggests that you are simply ignoring the underlying hollowness of your argument – that you haven’t actually considered what you mean by a country being “independent”.

  27. You wish to draw parallels with Scotland, and I am rejecting those parallels as not germane to my reply to Andrew111.

  28. Sea Change

    No. I’m asking you what you meant by “independent”.

    I happened to use a Scottish comparison, but I could equally well have used any other polity.

    For example, you presumably would assert that no member of the EU (whether Germany or Luxembourg) is “independent” because they are EU members.

    Are Iceland or Norway not “independent” because they are part of the EEA?

    Few in those polities would accept that they are not independent countries, so why do you suggest that the UK is somehow different?

    If you have seriously thought about such matters, then you must know what you meant.

  29. Oh don’t bring Trump discussions on here, it’s bad enough banging on about Brexit. We won that, he’s won over there…attempted “debate” is worthless.

    @EdgeOfSeat
    It’s rare because there’s rarely a swing towards the governing party 18 months into parliament. It’s the cons (increased on the GE) lead that’s astounding…given the poll lead however, a copeland win is actually pretty consistent with the swing & the last result. It may be splitting hairs, but as we’re here for polling…it shouldn’t actually amaze us if Cons win, having all seen they’re ~12 ahead.
    Last time they were ~6 ahead nationally, and were ~6.5 behind in this seat….it’s really not a big stretch.

  30. @OLDNAT

    I do not consider Norway or Iceland fully independent. They are semi-independent. They are still subject to decisions of the ECJ, they have to abide by Freedom of movement so cannot control who enters their countries from the EU.

    I have advocated from the start for a Canadian Style Free Trade agreement that includes services between the EU and the UK.

  31. @ Sea Change

    “For this reason I said at the time of the US Election that whether you like Trump or not, it is better for the UK at this moment in our history that we have him in the oval office and not Clinton.”

    Yeah…..no.

  32. Has Clinton ruled out running again in 2020?

    It could be argued that the Trump presidency is the result of the democratic party being in thrall to the Clinton dynasty. They went with her again this time despite her failiure in 2008.
    Do they have any other candidate who is willing to take on the clinton machine?

  33. Sea Change: “the very same type of EUphiles who are now screeching at the damage we are inflicting on the project.”

    An odd little excursion to fantasy land in the early hours, I see. It’s not remain supporters who are “screeching at the damage we are inflicting on the project” but the isolationists who are screeching in delight at what they see as our success in pulling the house down as we leave.

    What this particular supporter of the European project sees is that the EU will be even more successful once freed of its most recalcitrant member.

    The UK is the institution I’m worried about. In the direct sense, because Brexit will hasten its breakup, and indirectly because of the terrible economic damage this misguided project will inflict upon the country.

    The fervent belief in an alternative universe where Germany doesn’t export to southern Europe (“Southern Europe is no longer buying stuff” – Candy) and the EU is about to fall apart without the cement of UK financing to hold it together has the feel of a cult about it. As does mutually reinforcing back-slapping by the cult’s celebrants. I think I’ll start calling it the Prometheus illusion.

  34. @Candy – “He hasn’t changed his views since then, It is worth reading the whole interview.”

    No it isn’t. You have completely drifted past the entire point of @Pater cairn’s excellent post, and my own follow up.

    Quoting what Trump said in a 1990 interview in US publication Playboy, where he sounds like a red blooded American Man – I mean, really – are you taking this seriously? Apply the Peter principle, and just think for a moment what message Trump was trying to project then and to what audience.

    Then fast forward to the meeting he had in November with Japan’s PM, who was told not to believe the guff that Trump said previously.

    That’s the point of @Peter C’s post, and everyone should bear this in mind whenever Trump opens his mouth.

    Moving on:

    Another great example of how nothing Trump and his team says can be taken as true. His new Press Secretary has angrily denounced reports of the sparse attendance at the inaugaration by claiming the media is ly!ng. Despite numerous images, independent crowd counts, and hard data from the metro transit system, Team Trump is claiming the biggest ever crowd, despite the numbers being a third of what Obama got in his first ceremony.

    We’re in for four years of complete denial, which will only have any point or value if very stupid people continue to believe what Trump says.

  35. Somerjohn

    “What this particular supporter of the European project sees is that the EU will be even more successful once freed of its most recalcitrant member.”

    Good to see you have a sense of humour as well. :-)

  36. I think it’s going to be interesting how the EU responds to Trump. While there is a somewhat unsavoury transatlantic alliance happy to give the EU a good old kicking, and while I would personally argue that it is also true that in many ways the EU has failed to shoulder it’s portion of shared responsibilities, instead running too much on US coat tails, how Europe responds could be critical.

    Again, most people seem to think that action by Trump against Europe will be a one way street, bringing advantage back to the US, but again, this is action and reaction.

    Perhaps this is just what Europe needs? There’s nothing like the realisation that your oldest and closest ally is capable of doing outrageously stupid things to make you desire to be more secure and self contained. Perhaps in four years time we will see the US withdrawal from it’s defence, climate change and other global obligations simply lead to an enhanced EU operation, closer cooperation with China, and a shrinking of US global authority and influence.

    My best guess, and at present this remains only a guess, is that the long term economic impacts of Trump on the US will be to add debt and weaken the economic power of the US, along with shifting the balance of power away from the US, with Europe becoming more influencial in some areas.

  37. Somerjohn.

    Let us be clear. it is not Brexit which threatens the break up of the UK.Brexit is merely the latest excuse for a minority nationalist group in scotland to have another attempt at breaking the Union.

    You will recall that their first attempt ,which ended in failure, predated Brexit .

    The nationalists would no doubt have sought a second referendum upon a tory victory in 2020 no doubt on the basis that being subject to a permanent tory hegemony is a change of circumstance.

    The only way to save the union is the demise of scottish nationalism.This will occur naturally over time but to aid it on its way the UK government needs to adopt policies which exploit Brexit given advantages to the scots.

    I post this in the full knowledge that Old Nat ,if he has finished creosoting the decking, will reply in patronizing terms and mention the word “polity”which i always thought was a scottish Crofters word for a police station.

  38. Something to report on Brexit and the A50 saga.

    At a public meeting last week called by my constituency MP, there was quite an interesting discussion of the whole Brexit issue. The normal attitudes were present, with no-one reporting a change of mind since June. Somewhat depressingly, again it seemed that each side was unable to understand the language spoken by the other – leavers and remainers really did seem like they were from different planets.

    The interesting point was what the MP said. Labour, voted remain, will vote to activate A50, but is working with other MPs to table amendments seeking to protect specific areas (environment and employment standards, science and education cooperation, customs union membership, etc).

    The idea is that if these pass, TM will be obliged to seek to protect the named areas.

    The other interesting thing was that the MP said, in public, that if need be, they would completely ignore anything The Blessed Jeremy said. I can also report that conversations with a range of hard and soft Labour members and supporters were unanimous, and of the view that while TBJ has some good policies in general, they were utterly contemptuous of what they say as his appalling mismanagement of the office of Opposition Leader and in despair about his general drift and uselessess. The strength of these feelings really surprised me.

    To be clear – this was the view of around 15 others, of which at least half I would have expected to be very strong Corbyn supporters. In this neck of the woods, his internal support seems to be collapsing and patience with him has now run out.

  39. I am imagining him wearing the nasty insult “Dump” on a cap badge as he laps up the applause from The Dumped On of Obama’s America.

  40. Alec:”Perhaps this is just what Europe needs? ”

    Yes, you’ve articulated the thinking behind my mischievous assertion (much enjoyed by TOH!) that “the EU will be even more successful”.

    Already commentators are calling the EU27 more united, in the face of Brexit, than at any time before. The more unpredictable, erratic and protectionist the world outside becomes, the more the EU, as a rule- and co-operation-based organisation of mutual interests, will be perceived as an island of calm and sanity.

    It is perhaps an unacknowledged awareness of this that drives some to seek signs of weakness, collapse and inevitable failure in the EU. No-one likes to think they might be taking to a leaky, ill-equipped lifeboat in a stormy sea as the liner steams unruffled away. “Look, look, it’s sinkiing, the fools are all going to die!” they cry.

  41. Alec
    “I’m not saying that Trump is a buffoon – he isn’t – but the people who believe him really are.”
    And
    “We’re in for four years of complete denial, which will only have any point or value if very stupid people continue to believe what Trump says.”

    I am surprised that you have resorted to this level in the debate on Trump. Insulting the voters who have a different opinion to you is not very constructive. Have you watched Jonathan Pie on the issue? I won’t provide a link as it does contain a lots of F words but google it on YouTube. (President Trump, How & Why he won).

    OldNat
    “We are all where we are, not in some imagined alternative universe.”

    I agree entirely. The rest of your post is just you arguing for the sake of it. We mortals understood perfectly, the meaning of the word “independent” as used by @Seachange. (& I also know that, grammatically, that sentence is incorrect)

    Socal
    It was not “exhillerating”, it was another example of people who pay lip service to democracy when it goes their way but when the vote goes the other way, they march and protest. If Corbyn wins the 2020 GE I will just hibernate for 5 years. I won’t be going on protest marches because I can accept whatever result is thrown up, even when it is not what I want to see.

  42. Interesting noises from the German deputy finance minister:-

    “If Britain’s contribution falls away, the EU budget will shrink,” Jens Spahn told Handelsblatt.

    “There is certainly no automatic mechanism that (would make) Germany and other net contributors increase their contribution,” he added.”

    Reuters

    ““Compromises are possible,” he told The Sunday Times.
    We can and must talk. We can fine-tune things, we can devise new solutions.
    “There is a very broad range of options between single market membership and falling back on World Trade Organisation rules.
    “The process will take at least two years, it is far too early to come to any kind of definite conclusions now and one should take a step back from the febrile media debate.”
    Spahn dismissed the threat that Britain will have to pay a €60bn bill to leave the EU demanded by some officials. “The negotiations will determine how high the amount will be,” Spahn said.“We note the figure, but it will be subject to negotiation.”

    Times

  43. ROBERT NEWARK

    @”It was not “exhillerating”, it was another example of people who pay lip service to democracy when it goes their way but when the vote goes the other way, they march and protest. ”

    Here here.

  44. Alec

    As you say the differences in thinking and indeed vision between those who support brexit and those who don’t is huge.

    To give you my view of the futur, and to contrast it with your own:-

    My own view, and at present this remains only a view, is that the long term economic impacts of Trump on the US will be to add economic growth and to strengthen the economic power of the US, After Brexit the UK economy will flourish probably as never before after a relatively short downturn as we exit. Britains place in the World will be enhance, while that of the EU will decline and the EU itself will break up.

  45. Robert Newark

    Good post Robert, I’m with you all the way. It amazes me that some normally sensible people who post here have to resort to insults. As never before brexit really has produced “bad losers”. The other points you made were equally valid.

    What i find exhilarating is the new direction we and others are taking.

  46. sea change:
    Short answer:
    Yes, because we would be a lot worse off than we are now. For all its faults, countries are still desperate to join the EU, and we are the exception not the rule..

  47. Somerjohn,
    Since it seems to be the normal thing in today’s world for half the posts on here to be endorsements of posts that agree with your world view:
    Congratulations on your last post, i agree 100%! You are truly one of the most sensible and measured posters on this forum.. and polite too!

  48. @seachange

    ‘re the UK ‘s entry into the EEC , opinion polls and so on you seem to have ignored the the 1975 referendum which overwhelmingly endorsed our continued membership. Just an oversight I assume?

  49. @wood
    If you actually look at both Copeland and Stoke objectively you will see that for the Lib Dems to move into 3rd place in either of them would be a considerable achievement. Labour is the party whose votes are soft at the moment, and these seats are not Witney or Sleaford where Labour had no chance. Equally they are Leave voting seats where the UKIP vote is unlikely to collapse (cf Sleaford). I would see the only realistic chance of a lib Dem 3rd would be Stoke if UKIP managed to squeeze the Tory vote, but I would put that chance at <10%

  50. ” merely the latest excuse for a minority nationalist group …”

    Or in other words, the political party which has been elected three times to form the Scottish Government, won 56 of the 59 Westminster parliamentary seats in the 2015 UK GE, regularly has 20% plus leads in polling, and has a very large and active number of members. Some minority, some group.

1 6 7 8 9 10 12