Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor for the Standard has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. This is MORI’s first poll since the general election, and like other companies now shows Labour with a small lead over the Conservatives. Fieldwork was Friday to Tuesday. As far as I can tell, the methodology is back to MORI’s usual methods, as they were using before the election campaign. Full details are here.

To update on other voting intention polls earlier this week, ICM for the Guardian on Tuesday had voting intentions of CON 42%(+1), LAB 43%(nc), LDEM 7%(nc), UKIP 3%(nc). Fieldwork was over the weekend, and changes were from a fortnight ago. Full tabs for that are here.

Finally YouGov for the Times, which was released on Monday but conducted last week, had topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 45%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 2%. Tabs for that are here.

1,533 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 41, LAB 42, LD 9, UKIP 3”

1 25 26 27 28 29 31

    Sneaking into Ireland wouldn’t get you very far as you’d still be outside Schengen and would have to produce your passport again to enter any other EU country.

    By scheduled air line, yes.

    OTOH, they could claim refugee status and/or arrange a sea passage [or stowaway] aboard an Irish registered vessel.


    @” people like Liam Fox and Philip Hammond are inventing wild fantasies about our economic future.”

    I didn’t respond to this .

    Putting aside your own partisan hyperbole , yes it is unsettling to witness fundamental questions about Brexit ” options” ** still being debated within Government.

    But the GE result which Corbyn has claimed such credit for ( or credit for winning in some interpretations !) has produced a Parliamentary balance which facilitates such debate. Presumably you would equally, if not more concerned had TM got a huge mandate for a negotiating stance which received no effective opposition at all?.

    It is -to use your word-fantasy to assume that the divisions with Labour on Brexit would be any less apparent if they were facing Barnier as UK’s negotiating team.

    I anm as nervous about this whole thing as you are. It has never been attempted before & will change UK for ever. But we have to try and embrace the demand of the UK electorate, that a balance of opinion is struck. And that means debate within as well as between the political parties.

    What all politicians of every hue seem constantly to forget when promoting the Brext options they favour , is that what we get will be as much in the gift of the EU as it will be in the demands of the UK-thats what negotiation means.

  3. John P

    Which wild fantasies from Fox and Hammond had you in mind?

    Are both Fox and Hammond engaging in wild fantasies?

    I ask because it is unclear to me whether the EU will permit a treaty of succession to follow the discarded EU treaty. Would one or both ideas from Fox /and/or Hammond be acceptable assuming a new treaty was feasible in principle? Would the EU find such a treaty acceptable without knowing to where the UK was going to transition? It would seem that the likely destination would be a basic FTA with the EU – a hard Brexit? And in the unlikely event that there is such a transitional agreement as Fox/Hammond describes, is it likely that there would be a need for parliamentary approval of it? Or, perhaps, would there need to be another UK referendum to approve the new treaty.

    I think I need to have a lie down and a laugh

  4. COLIN and SAM
    My sense of fantasy in hearing Hammond and Fox derives from knowing the origins of a need to make any such forecasts or commitments – from exploitation by others high in their party of the lack of information as to the consequences, costs and benefits of Brexit in the referendum campaign; and from a failure of governance of their party in bringing the referendum about and, once implemented, in not ensuring sufficient time or substance for its consequences to be effectively debated or understood.
    As a result the forecasts being made appear to have no basis in rational debate or government.
    I now wonder, on a scale of one to ten, which would have the more probability: that Corbyn will become PM? Or that we will abandon Brexit and remain in the EU?
    I do anticipate that the latter will increasingly be the subject of serious debate and of campaigning.

  5. OLDNAT @ BZ

    I agree that the main problem is is cross-border trade.

    The real problem is that SF [and now the Irish government] support the Irish Sea border idea whilst DUP are against, despite their having been keen brexiteers yet in favour of an invisible land border.

    Presumably the DUP thought that the referendum was bound to fail but that waving the union flag could help them retain their unionist voters.

    Serendipity now gives the DUP the choice between allowing the Con HMG to have the exit it wants or to prevent it.

  6. Have to agree that the DUP are increasingly cornering themselves on this one. Clearly didn’t think this one through very well.

    I don’t think we can downplay the significance of Ireland’s intervention. The UK government is in quite a precarious position. I think options 1 and 3 are the most likely in those scenarios described here in the NS: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/07/irish-sea-border-and-3-other-tricky-options-northern-ireland-after-brexit

    Are there any other (serious) options other than these 4?

  7. COLIN
    ” the effect of “enduring truths” are apparent in the modern world economy from the responses of Soviet era peasant farmers to their enslavement in a status quo devoid of hope & self improvement.”
    I am glad that you read my exchanges with SYZyGY, which are mainly about methodology in research on small farmer livelihoods systems in developing countries, including communist countries of SE Asia. It, and the related issue of governance (more particularly administrative procedure and instruments in population displacement) has some relevance to the question of repression or its absence in countries of the kind you describe, with totalitarian leaderships andl governments.
    The document to which I provided a website was the report on a synposium on involuntary resettlement and livelihoods restoration. The paper to which I referred is a report on the use of a Chayanov-derived methodology in social impact assessment of the displacement of ethnic minorities in southern Laos displaced by hydropower designed to provide power to Vietnam under a bilateral concession agreement. The further purpose of the National University of Laos research was to provide the means for local safeguard workers to restore the rights and livelihoods of displaced ethnic minorities or similar remote populations without legal land rights.
    The context is also relevant to the assumptions made in your post in that while arbitrary decisions like that to create massive infrastructure may be made without democratic participation (on the sometimes spurious grounds of benefit to whole populations) the lives and rights of the majority rural population (in the case of Laos, mainly ethnic minorities) and the work of NGOs and local government can be supported, and long-term governance can be influenced by the kind of research which the IAIA paper reports. There’s a Rivers International report on the displacement of people at one of the villages concerned, Hindam, which is greatly strengthened by empirical research for which the data are provided in the Manila paper; a methodology which relates a complex reality in turn strengthens their and other case for a voice and equality of rights there and of similar populations in Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam.

    its not that easy….

    Ireland/France Ferry:

    It is compulsory for all passengers (including babies) to have their own valid passport or officially recognised European Union I.D. card when travelling to and from France or Ireland. In some cases a visa may also be required. If you are driving a vehicle you will also need a valid driving licence.

    Non-EU nationals should check with the French Embassy or with the Irish Embassy before travelling as they may need a visa as well as a passport. A visa can take several weeks to obtain so please make the necessary arrangements well ahead of your travel date.

    Passengers who turn up at our ports without a valid passport or an officially recognised European Union ID card (and a visa if required) will not be allowed to enter either France or Ireland.


    @”I do anticipate that the latter will increasingly be the subject of serious debate and of campaigning.”

    I think Vince Cable is ahead of you-and of JC :-)


    @ 12.42 pm

    …….erm……thanks ….??

  11. Good Morning all from Bournemouth.
    It is sunny here today, which made my Long Run easier, in which I could draw consolation from the fact that Mr Fox will make a lovely agreement with the USA President Trump.

    There are many people in Bournemouth who will help with the registration of EU- non UK workers and their children, no doubt, This should not take so long, but maybe there will be problems tracking their movements

  12. John P

    The Irish seem to think that there has been a little progress in Brexit talks towards dealing with the problems of the “divorce bill” and citizens’ rights. The Cabinet seems a little divided on the “divorce bill” between recognition that some billions of pounds may be due and agreement of the calculation method might be reached but, even so, the EU can “go whistle” for payment. Is Boris serious or is this punk diplomacy?

    On citizens’ rights, David Davis has declared the status quo as “unjustifiably
    high”. There seems to me to have been little movement that I can see.

    There will not be a border at the Irish Sea. And a “frictionless border” is an oxymoron. An “invisible” border is possible but comes with the likelihood of more smuggling and organised crime on both sides of the border. Infrastructure for larger Border Inspection Posts at Dublin and Shannon may be needed but there will be no talks about that until the last minute or later. Someone will have to pay for the cost of that

    David Davis may be right to say that the shape of the NI/Ireland border cannot be known until a trade deal with the EU is decided. However, there is no clarity about what the Cabinet wants as Brexit. The claims by Fox and Hammond are fantasy, at least at present. I questioned the practicality of these proposals up above in the thread.

    Fox and Gove will not mind too much a chaotic Brexit. Hammond does,but seems to have little sway and is as badly informed as others. See below.


  13. reggieside

    “the DUP will torpedo a sea border ”

    Blimey !!

  14. sam

    “I think I need to have a lie down and a laugh”

    The number of posters here who claim to go through extended periods of chortling at posts they disagree with is beginning to feel like an endemic.

    They really aren’t that funny I’m quite sure.

  15. SAM.
    Hello to you, and thank you for your post.

    It is amazing how the Irish Border question has come back to haunt another British Government.

    As you probably know Irtish Politics helped to destroy the prep 1830 Tory Government, the 1841-1846 Peel Government, the Gladstone Government of 1886 and 1892-1894, the Liberal Govt’s second phase from 1912-1916 and the Heath Government of 1970 Harold Wilson had to surrender to the Unionist/Loyalist Strike in 1974.
    Thatcher and Major showed great courage in launching the peace process, and Blair completed the ‘journey’ but his Government used the guidelines set out by Whitelaw and then by Major

  16. cakes

    Ta v. much for all the helpful advice on this topic.

    I did actually understand the allusion but prefer an old Yorkshire expression that my wife’s Granny used to use:

    “You can’t have your toffee and your ha’penny.”

    Much clearer I reckon.


    …. So the Common Travel Area was subsumed into the Freedom of Movement of Labour ….

    Excellent post. I must confess I hadn’t considered the intervening changes in EEA/EC/EU law. It did prompt me to have another look at the The Belfast Agreement [35pp PDF].

    To my surprise, although p33 (iii) still confirms that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people, it makes no reference to the CTA, despite listing a number of issues where it is vital. That statement is bound to be challenged in court, somewhere, I’d have thought, given that in the admittedly advisory EU referendum, in NI 55.8% of voters chose to remain.

    Page 16 of the PDF on the NORTH/SOUTH MINISTERIAL COUNCIL has Areas for North-South co-operation and implementation may include the following:
    1. Agriculture – animal and plant health.
    2. Education – teacher qualifications and exchanges.
    3. Transport – strategic transport planning.
    4. Environment – environmental protection, pollution, water quality, and waste management.
    5. Waterways – inland waterways.
    6. Social Security/Social Welfare – entitlements of cross-border workers and fraud control.
    7. Tourism – promotion, marketing, research, and product development.
    8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG, Leader II and their successors.
    9. Inland Fisheries.
    10. Aquaculture and marine matters
    11. Health: accident and emergency services and other related crossborder issues.
    12. Urban and rural development.

    All somewhat problematic shorn of the CTA, I suspect.

    However, re EEA/EC/EU law, p18 on the BRITISH-IRISH INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE includes: The Conference will bring together the British and Irish Governments to promote bilateral co-operation at all levels on all matters of mutual interest within the competence of both Governments.

    The words in bold are the only recognition I spotted which seems to recognise the limitations on power which apply to EU member states.

  18. BBZ – 3.20 p.m.

    Thank you.

    As you will have realised, my post raises the issue which is in bold towards the end of your post:

    Is it within the competence of the Republic’s government, whilst remaining in the EU, to enter into (or resurrect) an agreement with a third country, when the same rights established in that agreement are denied to all other EU countries?

    My gut feeling is that it is not within the competence of the Republic’s government to do this. Indeed, it is fundamental to the argument of the Brexiteers that it is NOT within the competence of any EU country to engage is such an agreement. The UK is currently tied to pan-EU arrangements when it comes to movement of labour. That is one of the reasons the Brexiteers cite for withdrawal from the EU, is it not? So the only way the old UK/RoI CTA can be revived is if the RoI also leaves the EU. I don’t see any benefit to the EU (or to the Republic for that matter) in allowing the UK to have a special deal with the Republic over this issue.

  19. BBZ – further to my last post:

    And p33 (iiii) is, in itself, enough (in my opinion) to stop Brexit. We can have the Belfast Agreement or we can have Brexit. We cannot have both (though doubtless many on this site will disagree). I know which I prefer, having lived for many years in the shadow of the Troubles and their effects.
    Younger readers may not have that same perspective, of course, and those who live in the south of England and who understand little and care less about Irish matters will also dismiss the whole thing as an irrelevance. But the DUP will have to find a way of piloting Brexit through this conundrum, with Scots Tories equally aware of the potential for disaster if this is badly handled.


    Thanks for the NS link to An Irish Sea border – and 3 other tricky options for Northern Ireland after Brexit, a useful addition to the recent Times and Irish Times articles.

    The trouble with option 3 for DUP is that it is what SF originally suggested and that option 4 is precisely what the DUP hope to prevent indefinitely. In any event, the Belfast Agreement gives the people of NI the right to reject any change in their statues [see my previous post].

    The NS article is correct that sooner or later there’ll be enough non-unionists for NI to want to join the republic, but unless there’s a much longer transitional agreement [20 yrs + perhaps] then I don’t see getting NI consent as being likely.

    Somehow, I can’t see the Cons being supported by the DUP on either option.


    All fair comment but those aren’t the kind of sea crossings I had in mind.

    I was thinking more of chartering fishing boats and landing in smaller ports, although stowing away in containers would also be a probable method.

  22. BZ 4.17

    Obviously I, as a pro-EU small ‘n’ Scottish nationalist would prefer option 3, with NI and Scotland in effect leaving what would remain of the UK and staying in the EU. But somehow I don’t see a Tory government, or any UK government for that matter, allowing this to happen.


    Interesting article in The Observer today reckoning that the Tory Party will wants to have a proper leadership election this time round, instead of the ‘coronation’ that gave them to untested ‘qualities’ of Teresa May.

    The only problem with a proper election is that the electorate (i.e. Tory members) is very small and elderly; last time out they chose IDS to challenge Tony Blair!


    Thanks for the link to the Brendan Donnelly blog.

    As a former Con MEP he seems to know his former colleagues fairly well. It’s unclear when the blog post was made, so perhaps he can be forgiven for not spending much space on what the DUP will be prepared to allow.

    I don’t see them as wanting to commit seppuku.

  25. @Toby Ebert

    Last time out they picked David Cameron over David Davis and he won 2 elections.

    They are also resolutely pro hard Brexit.

  26. JOHN B @ BZ

    I think we’re agreed on both your recent posts.

    Perhaps the DUP way out is to quote p33 (iiii) of the Belfast Agreement and demand an NI referendum to accept or decline whatever NI border the Cons propose to settle the matter.

    Nobody could then blame them for pulling the plug on May or whoever should HMG decline.

  27. COLIN
    “I think Vince Cable is ahead of you-and of JC :-)”

    So, of course, he should be, since he is leading a party whose manifesto declared its intention to seek another referendum on the outcome of Brexit, with a growing likelihood that this would support remain. He is, moreover, with George Robertson, former SG oF NATO, and Tony Blair the third big beast to declare for an abandonment of Brexit and, with the author of Article 150, to have genuine and long experience of the strength and intentions of the EU treaty basis in trade, security and population movement, far outweighing that of the Conservative leadership. Whatever ensues – and as yet there is no organised basis for it – I cannot see these politicians and others letting Brexit go forward without a parliamentary and electoral resistance designed to get a majority vote for annuling Article 150 abandoning the Brexit process.

  28. South Africa falling apart faster than Theresa’s manifesto…

  29. JOHN B @ BZ

    I agree that option 3 – with probably only England opting to leave the EU – would be the leastworst option, with all 4 nations ultimately having the option of leaving the UK union.

    Of course the capital would have to move to EU territory and would need each nation to have FFA.

    I agree that none of the supposedly GB parties are anything like ready for that, though.

  30. Agnew, I think, likened TRJ’s run-up to that of Trueman. Larwood, I think, if you look back at the clips, same loping stride and still upper body.

  31. Paul Croft

    How do you know what I was laughing at? And whether it was in amusement, disbelief or something else that would not be a “chortle”. Usually I find little to laugh about in the posts of others. or in life generally. I think I’ll go and lie down and have a wee greet.

  32. Chris Lane

    Thank you for the history references – not all were familiar to me. There may be ways to deal with the NI/Ireland border problem – I don’t know.

  33. BBZ

    John P

    Is this link relevant to what you have been discussing up above in the thread?


    Fair enough. That’s a lot if smuggling, first to Ireland and then to the continent.


    I remember that EGTCs were discussed a few threads ago. They wouldn’t be hard to set up for the home nations but I don’t see Westminster being very keen and they’re still looking for transitional solutions which suggests they’ll eventually pull out of the EEA completely and in turn be unwilling to fund such projects.

    If the DUP start becoming interested in them, their bargaining power might change things, but I suspect that’s unlikely.

  36. Great to see TRJ, proper county stalwart (and who laid waste to the White Rose foe last season) making the step up to Test cricket.

  37. Lots of European polls today, things still looking good for Merkel, her party leads by 14. Her and her liberal allies are on 46 and the red/green bloc are on 41. The far right alternative for Germany( anti immigration but I don’t know their economics) has 9 points. So Merkel might have enough to get her coalition into power or she might have to rely on unofficial support from AFD

    …. So the Common Travel Area was subsumed into the Freedom of Movement of Labour ….

    I think this confuses two different things.

    The Common Travel Area was, and remains in theory if less so in practice given the current “security” measures that are in place, a system of immigration control free travel.

    Free movement of labour never required this. Immigration controls remained in place long after we joined the EU, and until they were removed by the Schengen Agreement. The parallels to the the CTA are the Schengen area, and the Nordic Passport Union.

    Both the CTA (in respect of the Isle of Man) and the NPU ( in respect of Norway and the Faeroes) apply to non-EU territories already so it is self-evidently not contrary the the Treaties for them to do so and to continue to do so after Brexit.

    Brexit will present many problems, and not just in Ireland. This really should not be one of them. In legal terms at any rate. Politics is another matter of course.

  39. Beginning of previous post sounds a tad patronising. That was not my intent. Apols if it comes across that way.

  40. Colin,
    “I anm as nervous about this whole thing as you are. It has never been attempted before & will change UK for ever. But we have to try and embrace the demand of the UK electorate, that a balance of opinion is struck.”

    Severel assumptions there which I doubt are justified. Change the Uk forever? I doubt it. Forever is a very long time, generation perhaps. I predict that if the Uk does leave the EU in any meaningfull way, it will still continue to converge economically and administratively in the long term. Globalisation means that is inevitable unless the UK means to strike out in a completely different policy direction to most other western economies, and I doubt it will.

    Embrace the demands of the UK electorate? How? 1/3 leave 1/3 remain, 1/3 didnt vote. It might be a technical win for leave but the whole problem is that it was not a decisive result. Still continues as 50/50 leave remain, and we are left bickering over what constitutes leaving and what a compromise satisfying both leaving and remaining might look like. No political solution to this problem has been proposed.

    John B,
    “My gut feeling is that it is not within the competence of the Republic’s government to do this. Indeed, it is fundamental to the argument of the Brexiteers that it is NOT within the competence of any EU country to engage is such an agreement”

    The question of competence of member states is something of a variable feast. The EU works by compromise. To obtain something which is technically beyond the competence of one member to obtain, it is customary to offer changes on something else in exchange. So while notionally Ireland might not have competence to make agreements over borders, it might well have competence to engage in negotiations which would result in those same agreements being adopeted by the EU. Members competence is much wider than a simplistic listing of their rights, because the EU is not a state and technically is subordinate to the members.


    @” I cannot see these politicians and others letting Brexit go forward without a parliamentary and electoral resistance designed to get a majority vote for annuling Article 150 abandoning the Brexit process.”

    But two of those three aren’t in Parliament.

    And we know that JC is committed to “respecting the Referendum result” -and thus giving the next Labour Government ( under him) a free hand to install a Protectionist Industrial strategy free from the meddling interference of the EU Commission.

    So how will it come to pass?

    You think perhaps that JC will u-turn to Remain ??

  42. @COLIN

    Corbyn is in an interesting position. When speaking to those on the right of the party many of them were against the manifesto because they thought that the policies would be rejected. Once you strip that away the manifesto and policy are made at conference and by committee so the more interesting point comes at the point when they will have to stake the position to the mast.

    it reminds me of nuclear disarmament. Corbyn won’t be able to get that policy through on a one member one vote, and I would have thought he would not be able to get a hard brexit via one member one vote.

    His advantage which to my mind is cynical, is that he did nto win the election therefore he does not take responsibility for anything that happens. It is why for example the issue of student debt was taken out of context because there is nothing to really nail Corbyn on. it is like Herding cats. The reality is as a country we are deeply divided and whilst I think many are fed up and want something to happen this was sold as something that was simple and it turns out not to be the case.

    As I have said many times this reminds me of Iraq 2003 no one will admit they were wrong in 10 years time because it would be too painful a situation to do so.

  43. DANNY

    It will change UK forever-we will not be in the EU-ever. We will start to enact all our own laws-forever.

    Of course we will comply with whatever trade regs & conditions are required to trade around the world-like everyone else.

    Your “convergence ” point is interesting. The EU having spectacularly failed to get its members’ economies to converge, will, I predict abandon all the supra national sticking plasters , and enact Fiscal & Political Union to go with Monetary Union.The EZ will =EU & will be managed as one economy.

    For UK-and for many mature economies including EZ, there is a storm of change coming.
    You may have noticed the Tectonic announcements in Paris & London-preceded by Volvo motors that within a few decades new Diesel and Petrol cars will be no more. Think about the effects of that-they are massive.
    Add in the advent of autonomous driving systems & consider that the most common job in USA in Truck Driver., Uber in the cities is reducing car ownership among millenials. Fin Tech will transform Banking Services. On line Retailing is destroying Bricks & Mortar Retailing. Today’s Corporate giants-global companies are on the verge of becoming dinosaurs.

    According to Carl Frey & Michael Osborne of Oxford University half the jobs in USA are at risk of being automated in the next two decades.

    Nial Ferguson in today’s ST notes that Steve Bannon was quoted as saying he wanted to regulate Google & Facebook like public utilities. NF observes that Google & Facebook are free whereas he pays many dollars a month for his utilities . In a U-turn on his attitude to Trump, Ferguson says that Trump will discover that his jobs are being destroyed in Silicon Valley-not in China & Mexico.

    Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos & the others will usher in a new economy which will have serious implications for investors, jobs, tax revenues -and politicians.

    So everyone will be “striking out in a new direction” . Only the fittest & most agile will survive.

  44. @peterw

    I don’t think your IoM comparison ‘re the CTA passes muster.

    The IoM is a Crown dependency of the UK and not a sovereign state so it does not have third country status for the EU which is what the UK will have after Brexit.

    Norway is in the Schengen area and Faroe islanders are not subject to border controls when travelling to the Schengen area.

  45. Pass the rock

    “it reminds me of nuclear disarmament. Corbyn won’t be able to get that policy through on a one member one vote, and I would have thought he would not be able to get a hard brexit via one member one vote.”

    I’m pretty sure you are right about Brexit hard or soft but with a influx of more idealistic members and a reported exodus of pragmatists (at least according to some posters on here) it’s quite possible that at the very least the membership will vote for scrapping trident.

  46. As I see it there were 3 groups that opposed JC with in the PLP and wider membership with some overlap of course.

    The true believers who were comfortable not only accepting but also embracing the post 79 Economic settlement.
    Some of these are still irreconcilable while others realise that tactically they have to stay quiet. A few may leave but not many as they believe Corbyn can’t win and that although it may take some time eventually their vision for Labour will gain ascendancy and to Electoral triumph.

    A second group just thought that a left wing platform was unelectable now in the UK (GB for ON as they don’t stand in NI) and believe Elections are won from the centre. Most of these, which I think was the biggest group, now accept that winning with such a programme is at least possible and are prepared to go with it for the next GE at least.

    A third group thought that he was a bad leader and perhaps he was by traditional measures and may still be in some ways. Most of this group now accept that he has enough compensatory Electoral appeal and that he may take them to a GE victory.

    In short very few will be willing to rock the boat in the next year or 2 and positioning will be about the succession as if the parliament last 5 years (or even 4) he can’t lead Labour in to next GE due to age imo.

  47. CR

    “exodus of pragmatists”

    I’m not sure if I’m a pragmatist or not, but I left the party over Brexit so I suppose I’m part of an exodus. But I’m totally into scrapping Trident. I actually think it’s the pragmatic choice!

    Categories are never simple.

  48. Hireton

    “The IoM is a Crown dependency of the UK and not a sovereign state so it does not have third country status for the EU which is what the UK will have after Brexit.”

    True – but the range of powers exercised by microstates can be rather similar to aspects of the governance of the Channel Islands and Mann.

    They exist as pretty independent units for a variety of historical reasons (primarily because no neighbouring state bothered to incorporate them into its territory).

    Their existence, however, allows a useful set of precedents that can be used should the negotiating parties wish to fudge matters, without actually intruding into sensitive areas like sovereignty.

    Andorra, for example, can be seen as a condominium and the future of relations between the EU/EEA and these microstates is currently in negotiation


    The range of types of Association Agreements that the EU is happy to implement is rather impressive, so it seems unlikely that special mechanisms for NI that would save face for all concerned, could not be made – if there was a genuine wish to make such an arrangement.


    I’m pretty sure you are right about Brexit hard or soft but with a influx of more idealistic members and a reported exodus of pragmatists (at least according to some posters on here) it’s quite possible that at the very least the membership will vote for scrapping trident.>/i>

    It would actually be pretty much a certainty about Trident. If you look at this poll of the Labour ‘selectorate’ from Feb 2016:


    you can see in the cross-heads that the (weighted) number in the sample pro-Trident was 217, anti- 839. That’s 79% against and I doubt Labour members have got any more nuke-loving in the 18 months since.

    Similarly, as I pointed out earlier in the thread Labour members are overwhelming pro-EU, probably around 90%. But I suspect they also agree with the leadership that, at this stage, fervent opposition to Brexit will not be a way of winning over (or even retaining) voters, especially those extra voters who they will need to persuade to get a majority. Certainly it didn’t help the Lib Dems much.

    More to the point, though pro-EU, they simply may not consider it the most important thing at this moment – something we have seen more generally in Labour voters. And Labour isn’t in government, it doesn’t have a seat at the negotiations. So saying what must happen is not only politically dangerous, it’s ineffective. Far better to let the government muck things up while making tutting noises and being as non-committal as possible. After all even saying you ‘respect’ the referendum result doesn’t mean you feel obliged to follow it and the Manifesto was wonderfully ambiguous. (This is why Barry Gardiner’s piece in the Guardian was a mistake).

1 25 26 27 28 29 31