Two new voting intention polls this week showing very similar figures. YouGov‘s latest poll was actually conducted last week, but was only released today and has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 4% (full tabs are here.

The regular ICM poll for the Guardian, conducted over the weekend, has extremely similar topline figures – CON 42%, LAB 42%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 3% (full tabs are here).

ICM also asked about people’s attitudes towards Britain paying a financial settlement as part of our Brexit negotiations (a so-called “exit fee”). ICM asked similar questions back in April and found very little support – only 10% thought paying a £20bn settlement would be acceptable, 15% a £10bn fee and 33% a £3bn exit fee. This time the figures suggested in the question were changed to what are probably more realistic figures and with interesting results – now 9% think a settlement of £40bn would be acceptable, 11% a £30bn settlement, 18% a £20bn settlement, 41% a £10bn settlement.

On the face of it this one might think this is a startling change, a few months ago only 15% thought it would be acceptable to pay a £10bn settlement as part of Brexit, now 41% think it’s acceptable. I think it’s probably actually a good example of the importance of context in a question. Most people are really not that good at putting figures of billions of pounds in context – any sum that involves the words billion is a huge amount of money to begin with, so what would be a relatively small settlement? A moderate settlement? A huge settlement? The only thing respondents have to scale it by is the question itself. In April £3bn was implicitly presented as the small option and £10bn was presented as the medium option. In this poll £10bn is implicitly presented as the small option and £20bn or £30bn are presented as the medium options – hence why a £10bn settlement suddenly seems to be so much more paletable.

That’s not to say the question doesn’t tell us anything at all – there’s still an interesting increase. In April only 33% thought a “small” financial settlement would be acceptable as part of the Brexit deal; now that figure has risen to 41% (despite the actual figure quoted tripling!). It looks as if the public may be moving towards accepting that a financial settlement may be an inevitable part of Brexit.


798 Responses to “Latest YouGov and ICM voting intentions”

1 12 13 14 15 16
  1. Peter Cairns
    Yes of course China in particular is a growing power and (IMHO) is nailed on to be the world dominant power within 50 years. This does not mean we have to throw up our hands in despair.

    This link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Britain.27s_imperial_century_.281815.E2.80.931914.29

    shows that even at our peak (1870) the UK only had 9% of world GDP. It’s a reasonable guess that we had roughly that share of world trade.

    Although China is an older civilisation than our own, we have centuries more experience of being a worldwide trading nation. Yes it seems that we will have a declining share of world wealth and trade, but the actual figures will still grow (at least until Yellowstone Park blows up).

    If our country is so cr*p, why do so many want to come here both legally and illegally? It would be interesting to know how many immigrants China has as a proportion of it’s population compared to ours.

    G’night all.

  2. Peter Cairns: Having left the stifling EU Walled Garden and moving in Column with our partners are we about to find out it’s a jungle out there

    Yes, I fear that’s exactly what we’ll discover.

    I haven’t yet had any takers from Brexiters for my request for a list of countries with which we could expect to do trade deals that result in our increasing sales to them more than they do to us.

  3. “If she had seen an old police box, she would have been scurrying home to avoid the Daleks.”
    @oldnat September 4th, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    Well the only one I have ever seen was in Edinburgh. Google strongly suggests it is still there:

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.962721,-3.1998146,3a,75y,214.29h,77.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svQrhyLm3nMImMcibsYMU6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

  4. Al Urqa

    Of course, it’s still there! The time rotor has malfunctioned, and the new part can’t be consigned from Gallifrey until the UK has decided whether or not it’s going to be part of Customs Union.

    Intergalactic tariffs can be prohibitively expensive.

  5. “Of course, it’s still there! The time rotor has malfunctioned, and the new part can’t be consigned from Gallifrey until the UK has decided whether or not it’s going to be part of Customs Union.

    Intergalactic tariffs can be prohibitively expensive.”
    @oldnat September 5th, 2017 at 12:08 am

    Or maybe it’s simply because the whisky is so good — why go anywhere else? (At least that’s my memory of Edinburgh. Hic)

  6. PeteB,

    ” It’s a reasonable guess that we had roughly that share of world trade.’

    eh, I don’t think it is. In 1870 there was relatively little global trade as such and it was slow and mostly raw materials. Given that we had an empire and were by then the worlds premier naval power at time when ships were the principle way of moving goods I’d be surprised if we didn’t account for a lot more than 9% of global trade.

    Anyway even if we didn’t it’s still almost four times our current share. That’s a 300% decline.

    “If our country is so cr*p, why do so many want to come here both legally and illegally?”

    Because like capital labour flows to the best return. What share of global trade we have or whether it is in declines matters not a jot to someone who can earn here in a few days more than he could at home in a month.

    You get a basic £5.65 or so as an 18 year old in McDonald’s, that’s about £200 for a 35hr week.

    A Qualified Teacher in Romania gets €300 a month…

    “It would be interesting to know how many immigrants China has as a proportion of it’s population compared to ours.”

    Pretty Obviously pretty few because it has no shortage of Labour, very poor wages and Militarised borders, with restrictive immigration rules. It does however have a huge number of Migrant labourers who travel from very poor rural areas to work in cities in like shanghai in the same way that east europeans head for London.

    funny; their it is seen as boosting growth, here it is seen as stealing our jobs!

    Peter.

  7. @COLIN

    You’ve sent 3 links telling me how the Germans hate fiscal transfers and then in your last post you argue that RAL is fiscal transfers and a huge scale………..

    That aside, I agree with you that the UK EU brexit issue will surround the RAL as they are essentially pay as they come up. however the projects have been defined and costed. As I said it is not Germany the UK needs to negotiate with it is Eastern Europeans.

    Greece is not an issue of fiscal transfer. The Greeks borrowed on the Bond market and could not pay it back. it meant that Greece was bankrupt as they could not get people to lend money to them at a favourable rate. The Banks were stupid because they lent the money to the Greeks without a view of how they were going to pay it. This is very different to fiscal transfers for development.

    People keep putting them in the same category and I believe that is wrong. There is an issue for greece to solve how they make their economy more productive but at the moment they need to address the underlying issues.

    As to how the EU reorganises itself. I am not sure that Merkel is the problem again here, Macron needs time to get his deficit under 3%, he needs bond markets not to differentiate between french bond and german bonds or else he see bond flight and higher interest rates as a best case scenario. Bond market convergence occurred because banks were ‘making’ money on convergence, they do not make money on convergence any more hence macron worry.

  8. @TREVOR WARNE

    Simply put Free trade under current rules would mean that a country like ghana will always be a low value add country, where higher value add products would be sold to them. This tend to reach saturation quickly basically you get into debt. if you sell commodity produce you have to sell volume which basically lowers the price and hence the spiral. This is why there is a big thing about services and financial services at that. Many of the South American countries have seen many issue such as in Bolivia and the Water company that forbids people from collecting rainwater.

    Africa just about feeds itself on a very good year and at present free trade will mean that it cannot develop any industry/services to compete with UK. I am not expecting developing countries to be the backbone of our global reach. Indeed the west african countries are forming an EU like organisation to protect themselves in the same manner that the EU is doing providing a protected environment for them to develop other industries and services that will serve their needs.

    The regionalisation of markets and their closure will be a feature of the future because without them commodity based countries will never move up the food chain

    Interestingly subsidies for agriculture in the US for example is the thing that allows the US to export cheaply. It is why it is cheaper to export US rice to the bangladesh than for the country to grow its own and none of that changes with free trade since it is not really free trade anyway.

    In fairness the big players are where the UK need to concentrate and because of that they are

  9. Smileyben,
    Cable might change things for the libs, who knows, but I dont see how any change in policy is possible. The reason the libs have made no progress despite a flagship policy of remain, is that while a lot of voter might support it very much, they also know that objective would not be achieved by voting lib. Whereas, even if they are more doubtfull of labour’s remain credentials, they know it stands a chance of altering the course of events.

    The only way libs would do well in the current scenario is if labour becomes clearly leave. In that case, libs might achieve something like parity with the labour party on votes, and most likely the number of conservative MPs would go up significantly.

    trevor Warne,
    ” if it wasn’t for the slim CON majority and threat of resurgent UKIP I had always hoped that would be the “red line” that we’d smudge”

    On the contrary, I think the notion that a big conservative majority would lead to compromise has always been wrong, and a sop to remainers. What would have happened with a big conservative majority is they would have said ‘we clearly stated our intentions that no deal was better than a bad deal, and we are going for hard Brexit come what may’.

  10. @Peter Cairns – Like you, I am somewhat bemused by the ‘EU % of global trade’ argument being used as a negative judgement on the EU by people who believe the UK should sell our goods and services freely with the rest of the world. There is, in a logical sense, an inconsistency here.

    Large economies tend to dominate world trade. This is a statistical issue, because large economies use more materials and produce more goods and services – that’s why they are large economies. Therefore their share of trade is bound to be higher, especially in value terms, as the big economies tend to have the processing elements which produce more value, rather than the raw materials extraction, which will be scattered randomly between large and small economies.

    So Brexiters want to be able to sell UK goods and services across the globe, unhindered by trade barriers arising from EU membership? Free trade is meant to boost global production overall, which means economies get bigger. We want African countries to buy into our highly developed service sector, for instance, or import more of our cars.

    To do that, we must grow their economies substantially, otherwise where is this new demand going to come from? Therefore we will be seeing other economies getting larger, and as they get larger they will take up an increasing share of world trade, while ours, as a mature economy, is likely to proportionately decline.

    This is how global economies work, but this is what Brexiteers want. For free trade to work, it essentially means promoting growth elsewhere to create the demand for things we want to trade, and this invariably means your own proportion of trade declines, even as the actual volumes you trade increase.

    The reverese logic of this would be completely crazy. If the EU, for example, was to be ‘successful’ and take an ever increasing share of world trade, then over time it would capture 100% of world trade and there would be no other economies in the world. This is the ultimate end point of the Brexiteers logic of criticising the EU for a reduced share of world trade.

    The entire argument over the EU’s share of world trade is entirely bogus, and indeed once again shows that many Brexiteers are incapable of any kind of sensible analysis. If you are into that sort of thing, what really matters is to expand the global economy, and then ensure that your countries share of trade and economic activity (GDP) increases faster than your population does. If someone else’s country is growing faster that yours is, that doesn’t matter – it just creates a bigger market for you to sell into, even if your share of the total is shrinking.

    Too many Brexiters don’t do logic, and don’t do numbers. We face a dazzling future ahead of us!

  11. Alec

    “Too many Brexiters don’t do logic,”

    From what I speed read here day after day that applies more to Remainers than leavers. The other thing I notice is that recently at least the Leavers are much mor polite than Remainers.

    Of course we both have our positions, and I understand that Remainers are frustrated that we are leaving the EU. My advice to them is get a new hobby to recuce your frustration.

  12. @ALEC
    @PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    The argument used is the only one that give the idea that the EU is less important. You will have the argument that our subsidies are not like anyones elses subsidies next.

    The real problem is half that voted for leave voted for less competition and less less free trade. The argument has been that they can’t compete with polish, romanian workers here in the UK or as some one would say the Stoke versus Bristol argument.

    The whole FTA thing is hilarious for example the Japanese FTA covers a limited set of goods which suits both the EU and Japan. It does not suite the UK. The same argument will come when negotiating with Ghana as an example are we going to give them more access to their produce for what services. More importantly why are we not able to sell these services anyway?

    The idea that FTA means more trade and FTA does not mean tariffs and other barriers seems to me to interesting optimism.

    @DANNY

    I am not sure I agree with you about the hard brexit. I fear that the threat of a hard brexit was supposed to concentrate the minds of the EU and I suppose specifically Germany (all those cars we buy from them ). Listening to the German debate brexit did not come up at all not even in passing for me that was the most scary thing about all of this. In the UK both sides appeared triggered at any comment about brexit. In the EU it seems a different world

    What I am finding interesting is that the manifesto was rather light and following the austerity mantra and now it is even lighter and picking up Labour manifesto commitments I think theere will be an end of PS pay but not for everyone and that will be an interesting sell.

    I am wondering f the Labour party will pick up on this and hammer it home.

    the other interesting thing is that great adoption bill I think there is an interesting debate to be had in parliament about the henry VIII powers considering the aim was to make parliament sovereign there will be the odd conservative MP that will not like that on principle.

  13. PTRP Listening to the German debate brexit did not come up at all not even in passing for me that was the most scary thing about all of this.

    Yes. We’re not as big a deal as some of us think we are. Life as a go-it-alone smallish country is going to come as a rude shock. But shocks can be salutary: think of the transformation of Germany following its 1945 utter destruction and humiliation.

    When I’m scraping the barrel looking for upsides to Brexit, then the possibility that the UK will finally come to terms with its diminished status, and lose its addiction to self-importance, is about the best I can do.

  14. Another drop in UK car sales and the fall in the service sector PMI continues.

    Subdued economy as we move towards some decisions on Brexit.

  15. @SOMERJOHN

    I think it is part of our psyche, We believe our won propaganda. I watched a program about Dunkirk and the soldier coming back thought they were going to be shunned for losing but to their surprised they were treated as if they had won. One soldier pointed out it was rather weird that we did not understand what had happened.

    We are still doing it now it is our natural disposition.

  16. @TOH – “From what I speed read here day after day that applies more to Remainers than leavers. The other thing I notice is that recently at least the Leavers are much mor polite than Remainers.”

    Well, as I said a while ago, you do tend to avoid too much detail and speed reading probably accounts for that in part.

    As for politeness, well, that’s really in the eye of the beholder. You’re not adverse to the odd personal attack yourself, but overall I haven’t seen so many headlines painting leavers as saboteurs, enemies within, enemies of the people etc.

    We remainers have become used to this kind of nonsense, and it looks like leavers have too, if they don’t even notice it any more.

  17. @PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    “Interestingly subsidies for agriculture in the US for example is the thing that allows the US to export cheaply. It is why it is cheaper to export US rice to the bangladesh than for the country to grow its own and none of that changes with free trade since it is not really free trade anyway.”

    When i read something that appears surprising, i had to take a look online to investigate.

    From what i could find out, Bangladesh has only in recent years imported lots of rice, due to weather causing poor harvests. Most of the rice has come from Vietnam and India. Could not see any mention of rice imports from the US. The US does export rice, but mostly to western and South American countries.

    Do you have any information sources about US exporting rice to Asian countries in large quantities ?

    I would have thought that given the difference between US and Asian costs, as well as transportation, that very little US produced rice would end up in Asia. Asian countries produce enough rice to meet most demand in their continent. There might be expensive niche rices produced in the US which are sold to wealthy Asian consumers.

  18. Following his meeting with Michel Barnier, Simon Coveney, Ireland’s Foreign Minister says this: ” “I think there is a recognition that [the British plan for the Irish border] needs a lot more work,” Coveney said, explaining that the 1998 peace accord was drawn up on the assumption that both Britain and Ireland would remain members of the EU.

    Coveney added that unless the U.K. makes a more detailed proposal on what it owes the EU as it leaves the bloc in 2019, talks would not move forward to negotiations on trade. “Clearly, unless there is progress on that issue, we are not going to get to phase two,” he said. The EU has said “sufficient progress” must be made on the Irish border, the exit bill and citizens’ rights before the talks can move on to a future trade relationship.

    He also dismissed reports in the British press that it is the EU’s fault that progress on the Irish border is not moving faster.

    “I’ve seen some media coverage to suggest that this is all the EU’s fault and Britain wants to resolve all of these issues, but because of the EU it can’t be done. I think really that that is a distortion of the facts,” he said. “Britain is the country that has decided to leave the European Union. Britain in my view has a responsibility to its neighbors and friends.””

    http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-ireland-irish-foreign-minister-takes-swipe-at-uk-proposals/

  19. I’m not wasting more time trying to discuss the potential benefits of Brexit, my bookmark folder has been deleted and I’ve moved on – as even Corbyn says (sorry, said) the matter is settled.
    15mths on and even the flawed hindsight/do-over polling question still being asked by pollsters shows their has been no surge in desire to have had the alternate reality of Remain having won. FTPA use a 2/3 threshold and I’d say that is a fair benchmark to reopen the debate and UK’s options.

    However, I strongly recommend anyone who is still upset about the result of the democratic vote on 23June16 (and all the following numerous votes in parliament) takes the matter up with their LAB representative/MP and ensure the matter gets maximum debate time and focus at the upcoming LAB conference.

    LAB should fundamentally review the decision up to and including putting a second referendum on the table and after Mar’19 put rejoin the EU on the table and make it the centrepiece of their 2020-22 manifesto.

    Ignore LD’s polling numbers – simply baggage from cosying up to CON in the past – consider their 6% as certain extra LAB votes when the LAB U-turn is finalised. Under Corbyn kicking out the govt, holding and winning a GE, stopping Brexit negotiations, holding and winning a new referendum, and then starting and concluding (in principle at least) negotiations to rejoin the EU and have 27nations agree to let us back in all before Mar’19 would appeal to more than 6% of the electorate. If we roll past Mar’19 then I’m sure more than 6% of people would want to attempt to rejoin and go through this whole process again in reverse (having just left). If we had a Corbyn govt, you could possibly persuade me to vote to rejoin! Certainly in the unlikely situation of Corbyn becoming PM during the negotiations phase I hope LAB then stick to their new Brexit policy and ensure ECJ jurisdiction for at least 4yrs after Mar’19!

    Seriously, if anyone truly/strongly believes we should stay in EU grab the upcoming LAB party conference as your last chance to stop Brexit – you owe it to your grandchildren :)

  20. TOH

    In other words, you have no response to Alec’s well thought out and logical expose of the Brexit position above. How is that sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “Lah lah lah, I can’t hear you” working out for you? Pretty well I should imagine as it means you don’t have to deal with the difficult issues (from your point of view) that are raised.

    Incidentally, politeness also means having to courtesy to read other people’s points properly and deal with them not just dismiss them with ad hominem attacks.

  21. SAM

    I had already read that article and agree that it’s the UK’s mess and the UK’s responsibility to fix it.

    Also worth noting that the grauniad are reporting that Peter Hain will be speaking in the HoL later today, with the sub-heading:

    Former secretary of state to tell House of Lords that government’s position on Irish border is ‘delusional and contradictory’

    Well worth reading the whole article, which if nothing more suggests some more kissing and making-up within Lab ranks.

    I’ve always been dubious about Hain since his defection from the Liberals in the 60s but as a former NI SoS he seems to be on the right lines now.

  22. @Trevor Warne – I didn’t have time to get involved in the discussion on potential trade benefits from Brexit, but I would accept that there would be some potential upsides, if free trade is seen as a benefit.

    In truth, we don’t really know what might come about in this area, but it is fair to say that faster deals with trading partners are almost certain to arise than if we stay in the EU, as we don’t have to satisfy another 27 states in the negotiations (once we actually recruit the people we need to negotiate).

    However, speed apart, it’s also likely that we would not have the same negotiating authority, as we are a very much less significant economic entity than the EU s a block. We may get faster but poorer quality deals.

    Overall however, what really interests me is my sense that we are actually coming to the end of the obsession with globalized free trade. The entire point of the Brexit vote was one of rejecting the world’s largest economic trading block, because some people don’t want to share standards, over sight and legal enforcement. The issue of transnational labour flexibility was also seen as a significant negative by many.

    This, for me, is the central paradox amongst the Brexit side – they rejected a form of globalization in favour of a new version. When we sign new deals, there is no question that these will include supra national conflict resolution mechanisms and, as the Australian and Indian PMs have already demanded, relaxation of immigration restrictions. With a tenth of the negotiating power of the EU and an element of time pressure on the UK, accepting these demands to some degree as part of new deals is a near certainty.

    There is a lot about EU protectionsim in certain areas (like agriculture) that I did not like, but unlike many Brexiters, I am far less certain that what comes next will address the concerns expressed. Rather, we may well see that the negatives of globalization within the EU just become amplified as we look to sign deals with others, without the bargaining protection of the bigger block to help mitigate these things.

  23. There seems to be a remarkable belief amongst Leave advocates on here that a free-trade Brexit that effectively ends British manufacturing and farming will actually be acceptable to many who voted Leave.

    I can’t imagine a more effective way to leave the EU in a way that delegitimises the whole vote than betraying an entire Leave demographic.

    I think it illustrates how completely Brexit has become embedded in the Conservative identity, but without realising that it would never be happening without a group of voters who do not vote Tory (and did not at the last election). Is it just an oversight, forgetting that it was not merely a Tory cause? is it deep-seated indifference to the northern WWC demographic? Is there a desire to punish manufacturing workers for not switching to voting Tory as all the Right-wing pundits (and UKPR thinkers) assured us was inevitable? Is it just an inability to understand that standard Tory solutions to every problem, and that Brexit was not a de facto vote for turboThatcherism – more deregulation, more buccaneering free trade – have not worked for everyone and continue not to work for everyone?

    Whatever the reason, a failure to understand that this crucial Brexit demographic voted to Leave in order to preserve their livelihoods, that they wanted protection from immigration and global markets, and that to openly advocate and drive towards solutions that do the opposite invites disaster for national acceptance of Brexit and for the body politic.

  24. While it’s clearly bad news for the 1,400 Lego workers now being made redundant, they must be in a better position than many others in similar circumstances.

    They should be able to adapt and rebuild themselves quickly enough I would have thought.

  25. @ Al Urqa and Old Nat

    “Or maybe it’s simply because the whisky is so good — why go anywhere else?”

    Well indeed Scotland does seem to attract the Tardis trade, here’s the Glasgow one (which I have seen):

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8779736,-4.2901927,3a,75y,59.71h,70.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdhb8n-4uxbK6iJQtDD6VMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

    but there is also one in London:

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4921361,-0.1929129,3a,75y,282.72h,72.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOqzuX6R-tuFL79SYqCTSAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

    (Sorry, more fun than Brexit)

  26. Chris R: a failure to understand that this crucial Brexit demographic voted to Leave in order to preserve their livelihoods, that they wanted protection from immigration and global markets, and that to openly advocate and drive towards solutions that do the opposite invites disaster for national acceptance of Brexit and for the body politic.

    I think that’s right, but I also fear that many in this demographic will fail to realise – or refuse to accept – that they’ve been sold a pup.

    I think that’s why there is such a strong aversion to a confirmatory referendum on whatever deal emerges. It’s a race against time to make Brexit a fait accompli before it’s rumbled.

  27. @ Chris Riley

    I agree with your comment 12.08pm.

    The Tory position on Brexit does appear to be a belief that they will gain from implementing Brexit. It does not seem to matter to them that the UK economy might suffer for a number of years and people will suffer as a result. It is all about the completion of a journey.

    I think the older Tory membership will have mostly voted for Brexit and these are the people most Tory MP’s will come into contact with at constituency events. There may then be a feeling that they have to implement Brexit, to satisfy these local Tory party supporters or they risk being deselected. Not to mention the akward conversation at events, if they were to try to hinder Brexit in anyway.

    What this forgets, is the issues you mention and that there are many more votes from people who might actually not be happy with Brexit impacts. If the country changes its mind and a Tory Government just ploughs on regardless, then it would be no surprise if people reacted by voting for other parties at elections.

  28. R Huckle
    Interesting ‘Kremlinology’ on the Tory reasoning behind going for a psycho-Brexit.
    Can they be stopped, or at the least diverted into a Starmer type Brexit? ( My preferred outcome, cos the ructions caused by another Ref, would tear the country apart even more. )
    What we need is a period of healing asap.

  29. Alec
    Since I am a very busy person, even though retired, why would I do anything other than speed read the posts of people I generally disagree with and ignore most of them? I would be surprised if you didn’t do the same.

    Norbold
    If you read my post again you will see I did read Alec’s post because I responded to a particular point in it which I considered an ad hominem attack on Leavers generally.

    As to the rest of his post he was just going over “well worn” Remainer opinions which I was not interested in and therefore did not reply to.

    I loved your comment “How is that sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “Lah lah lah, I can’t hear you” working out for you?” It confirmed splendidly the point I was making in my original post, which was “The other thing I notice is that recently at least the Leavers are much more polite than Remainers”. Well done for that.
    The really interesting thing is that is the second time that phrase about Lah Lah Land has been used recently by Remainers. If I remember correctly it was Alec used it in a post to me (Alec if I’m wrong about that please accept my apologies) recently. Now I know nothing of Lah Lah Land whatever, but obviously you and some other Remainers do, perhaps you live there, and the phrase is used in ad hominem attacks.

    Finally I don’t see how you can consider what I posted to Alec an ad hominem attack. I was giving him some friendly advice. I have lots of hobbies and I enjoy them all and yes they are helpful if one is frustrated.

  30. @Jim jam

    I was blind now I can see :-)

  31. barbazenzero

    We are reading the same material, I see. I have already seen the Hain piece.

    The piece on Coveney does say that phase two of the Brexit talks is unlikely to happen without greater progress on the money due. I would expect both sides will want to get to phase two although there may be some Brexiters who will be agin paying anything. The “bill” is as much a political process as legal and there are calculations already done by academics wishing, one assumes, to be helpful.

    Here is one: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/02/23/britains-got-bills-but-will-we-pay-settling-our-eu-budget-obligations/

  32. @TOH – “Since I am a very busy person, even though retired, why would I do anything other than speed read the posts of people I generally disagree with and ignore most of them?”

    Because if you are going to respond to them, which you frequently do, yu first need to understand what they actually say.

    In this case, you haven’t. You instead claim that saying ‘too many Brexiters don’t do logic’ is an ad hominem attack, which it isn’t. It’s a statement of fact, specifically when related to the rest of my post. [Equally, too many remainers don’t necessarily do logic – but here I wasn’t talking about a point made reeatedly by remainers].

    You then claim that the rest of my post was just ‘well worn’ remainer opinions so you didn’t bother replying.

    As it happens, I believe on this you are completely wrong. I don’t necessarily read everything on UKPR or elsewhere, so I may well have missed comment on this, but I was specifically challenging the leavers trope that the EU share of world trade is shrinking, and the follow on assumption that this showed the EU to be failing.

    If you can show me who else has made the point that if this logic was reversed, so to be successful the EU would need to continually increase it’s share of world trade, eventually (by logic) beconing 100% of the world economy, I would accede that my argument is somewhat repetative. If you can’t, then you’ve just made an unfair personal attack on me, in some people’s eyes.

    Again, you haven’t engaged with the point made, and I suspect you haven’t entirely understood it, which brings us back to speed reading and understanding.

  33. Alec

    ” It’s a statement of fact,”

    Nonsense, it’s just your opinion. Your comment was an ad hominem attack on Leavers. I’m not bothered by it, just pointing out a real fact that recently Leavers have been more polite than Remainers while posting here. I assumed it was frustration that we are leaving the EU and gave you some friendly advice.

  34. @ Trevor Warne

    Although we are in agreement that a polling question that pretends it’s May 2016 is of no value at all, you’re missing my main point since you still assume that the only scenario that sees the UK in the EU at some future point beyond 2019 is “rejoining” (“and then starting and concluding (in principle at least) negotiations to rejoin the EU and have 27nations agree to let us back in all before Mar’19”).

    Leaving aside the obvious logical problem that your timetable requires us to rejoin before we leave and so is clearly impossible, I am assuming that your point is that the only way to produce a “remain” outcome is the procedure under A49TEU. This does indeed require new and unanimously agreed membership terms.

    But this seems to me to presuppose that their is no way the Article 50 process can be stopped. That we must leave and rejoin. We cannot from here simply not leave.

    Some authorities I have seen do argue that. Others argue that it can be stopped unilaterally by the UK, or that it can be stopped but only by mutual consent of the 27 by a QM vote, or that it can be stopped but only with unanimity.

    That point has not been tested, and the views I have read on the different positions include sources more qualified to comment than I am. So I regard there to be uncertainty as between those four views on the operation of Article 50 is legally correct.

    You appear to assume the first position to hold. What’s your special legal insight for doing so?

  35. “When I’m scraping the barrel looking for upsides to Brexit, then the possibility that the UK will finally come to terms with its diminished status, and lose its addiction to self-importance, is about the best I can do.
    @somerjohn September 5th, 2017 at 9:29 am

    I saw my 86-year old father the other day. He voted for Brexit. Why, I asked.

    ‘Well we won the war! And to stop all these **** Pakis from bringing their relatives in.’ (He lives in Burnley, a small town in the NW with a large number of Indian/Pakistani immigrants.)

    And…?

    ‘We’re English!’

    PLEASE don’t let the Tories pass the parcel — I think I can hear something ticking…

  36. @TOH – nonsense. It is a statement of fact.

    It is logically impossible for the EU to continually increase it’s share of global trade, and it is therefore illogical to use that measure as a means to judge the success of the EU. It is equally true to say that many Brexiters have used the argument about the EU’s declining share of global trade to signify failure, which is again, not logical.

    Ergo, too may Brexiters don’t do logic.

    You can cry ad hominem as much as you like, but unless you can actually refute the logic of the argument, you are simply doing nothing more than to provide further practical proof of the pont being made.

  37. Oh – and BTW – claiming a perfectly logical point is an ad hominem attack isn’t very polite.

  38. Alec

    I am not very interested in commenting on the content of that post, it is old ground, I have seen it before, and no, I’m not going to trawl back just to prove it. However I will make one comment, you say:
    “It is logically impossible for the EU to continually increase it’s share of global trade, and it is therefore illogical to use that measure as a means to judge the success of the EU.”

    Clearly I suspect all of us would agree that it would be impossibly for the EU to increase is share of global trade forever. However it is not logical to say that it is” therefore illogical to use that as a means to judge the success of the EU”. The EU is declining as a percentage of World Trade and that decline is continuing, forecast to be 10% or lower by 2050. The rate of decline may well be an indication of failure, detailed analysis is required to argue it one way or the other so your statement is not logical.

    You need to be clear on why I commented so I’ll repeat myself. What I was commenting on was your comment to Peter Cairns “Too many Brexiters don’t do logic, and don’t do numbers.”

    That is just an opinion, it’s not a fact and there is no way you can prove differently although of course you may be correct in some cases as I may be in the case of some Remainers.

    So it was just an ad hominem attack on many Leavers.

  39. ALEC

    Too many Brexiters don’t do logic, and don’t do numbers.

    I’ve often pointed out poll findings showing that Leavers even admit that they are operating more on instinct. There was a fascinating little poll released by YouGov recently[1]:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1ac3jceqmw/StatementsMade_W.pdf

    illustrating people’s belief in various classic ‘conspiracy theories'[2]:

    Childhood vaccines cause autism
    Remain: 4 – 73 = -69
    Leave: 11 – 57 = -46

    The world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity
    Remain: 89 – 6 = +83
    Leave: 67 – 24 = +43

    Modern humans have been on earth for around 200,000 years[3]
    Remain: 48 – 16 = +32
    Leave: 38 – 22 = +16

    NASA and the America government faked the moon landings
    Remain: 8 – 82 = -74
    Leave: 18 – 68 = -50

    Princess Diana was assassinated
    Remain: 26 – 59 = -33
    Leave: 44 – 40 = +4

    Planet earth is around 4.5 billion years old

    Remain: 63 – 4 = +59
    Leave: 54 – 6 = +48

    Alien life has contacted this planet in the past
    Remain: 21 – 55 = -34
    Leave: 31 – 42 = -11

    Now these aren’t predictive differences – Leavers are still mostly believe in man-made climate change for example. But they are consistently more likely to back the ‘conspiracy’ side and also say they are unsure about what is normally seen as fact. The only exception to this pattern is:

    Russian intelligence services helped Donald
    Trump to get elected
    Remain: 60 – 17 = +43
    Leave: 39 – 34 = +5

    though you could argue that since the poll was taken, that has been pretty much proved (or at the least that the Russians tried to).

    The differences mostly don’t seem to be based on other demographic factors such as Leave voters being older (there are exceptions such as women being more likely to believe Diana was assassinated). C2DE voters are more conspiracy inclined – however they are usually more likely to say DK anyway.

    There is probably a link here with lower levels of education which research has found to be the strongest predictor for voting Leave:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

    Those with a higher level of education are more likely to trained in basing decisions on data rather than feelings.

    But I would also suggest that there is an element of gullibiity involved. Leave voters are in the end those who believed what they read in the papers which had been attacking the EU for decades. Note that the widest divergence is about “the Papers’ Princess”. The anti-expert rhetoric also played into both Leave and the tendency to base behaviour on hopes rather than facts.

    [1] It was actually conducted 11-13 January, but presumably the results didn’t suit the narrative of the commissioner (though none is mentioned) and the tables were only published last Friday. I’d think it was intended to show the difference between Leave and Remain voters as it is a larger than usual original sample which gives 1315/1439 raw base for each.

    [2] The figures are all for (“Is definitely true” + “Is probably true”) – ( “Is probably false” + “Is definitely false”) follwed by the nett score for Remain and Leave voters. I’ve ignored statements for which there was little support for one side “Smoking causes cancer”, “Elvis Presley is still alive”, “After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, official statements were substantially amended to remove comments unfavourable to the police”.

    [3] I suspect the high level of Don’t Knows on these questions may be influenced by quibbling over the exact figures (eg thinking it only 100,000/4.0 bilion years).

  40. @TOH – I’m glad we are in agreement and you have confirmed exactly what I said, except for the bit where you then go and argue against youself.

    @Roger Mexico – never was there a more timely post on the detail of polling.

    Thank you.

  41. TOH

    “Alec
    Since I am a very busy person, even though retired, why would I do anything other than speed read the posts of people I generally disagree with and ignore most of them? I would be surprised if you didn’t do the same.

    Norbold
    If you read my post again you will see I did read Alec’s post because I responded to a particular point in it which I considered an ad hominem attack on Leavers generally.”

    So, you don’t have to read posts properly in order to understand the points being made, but others should read yours twice before they have the temerity to disagree with you…

    Pot. Kettle. Goose. Gander.

  42. @Alec/TOH

    I must say that I think proclaiming that you are too busy to do more than skim-read others’ posts, but nevertheless feeling free to disparage mistaken assumptions of what they’re about, betrays a basic lack of good manners. I’ve come cross this sort of behaviour before, and in my experience it usually comes from people who are not accustomed to having their assertions challenged, or having to justify them. Trump is a good example.

    TOH’s mistaken assumption as to what “putting your fingers in you ears and saying la-la-la” is about is an example of the consequences of inadequate comprehension. He presumably saw “la-la” and assumed it was a reference to the recent Hollywood film, La-la Land.

    Taking a moment or two to think about the post would have avoided the unfavourable light which this casts.

    In case the difference is still not understood: putting your fingers in you ears and saying la-la-la is a description of the behaviour of a child who doesn’t want to hear what adults are saying, or want to listen and respond coherently. It’s (I presume) a reference to posters here who won’t study and digest others’ points, and respond with counter-arguments, but prefer to trot out a few platitudes.

  43. Alec

    Your quite wrong as I clearly demonstrated your faulty logic when I said:

    “However it is not logical to say that it is” therefore illogical to use that as a means to judge the success of the EU”. The EU is declining as a percentage of World Trade and that decline is continuing, forecast to be 10% or lower by 2050. The rate of decline may well be an indication of failure, detailed analysis is required to argue it one way or the other so your statement is not logical.

    QED :-)

  44. A while back TOH asked if there had any research into how other EU countries viewed Brexit and whether the Referendum result had increased the likelihood of other states leaving as well.

    A Swiss academic, Stefanie Walter, recently tweeted some results in a reply to @IainDale:

    https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/903260424996573184

    Saying “For what it’s worth: EU citizens mostly support EU commission’s negotiation stance. If anything, they want a harder line” There are provisos on it (see rest of thread) and some of the sample sizes are small, but while maybe there’s sympathy for the UK there’s not much support.

    As to the effect of Brexit on other EU members, there was a MORI poll soon afterwards which showed a sharp increase in support for the EU. A more recent survey from Pew Research this spring:

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/

    showed that the pro-EU swing was maintained in terms of favourability and that, while Wells’ Law was maintained in that most countries would support a referendum, none wanted to leave. The highest levels of support were only 36% in Greece and 34% in Italy.

  45. Somerjohn

    You clearly do not understand the recent exchange between Alec and myself. I was taking exception to his ad hominen comment about some Leavers, as simple as that. I had made my point, was very happy to leave it at that, but since he chose to follow up I demonstrated clearly that part of his central argument in the post I commented on was illogical.

    As for your other comments you just making your own ad hominems. So you, Norbold and Alec have just the point I was making about politeness. All very amusing.

  46. @ Roger Mexico

    Excellent post at 2.41pm. Agree with the general thrust. There is definitely a different outlook between remainers and leavers, not just on the EU.

    I support remain, but In regard to Moon landings, i actually do think these might have been faked, even though there is a lot of evidence to suggest they took place. The reasons for my doubt, include the massive challenges that there would have been at the time to safely send astronauts to the Moon and back. And why have they not been back since to set up say a research station, rather than use a satellite international space station. People forget that the space race was a big part of the cold war with the USSR.

  47. ROGER MEXICO

    Thanks for that, I’ll have a look at the two references you list. I must say I am not particularly surprised by your summary of the findings at the moment; a country leaving the EU is a new experience for all involved. What will be interesting is what the results are to similar questions posed in 2030, especially if, as I believe, the UK makes a success of leaving the EU.

  48. Somerjohn

    Insert “proved ” between just and the point.

  49. Roger Mexico

    I thought the following interesting comments in the report from pewglobal:

    “That does not necessarily mean these publics are satisfied with the current state of affairs in Europe. Perhaps reflecting frustrations with whether their voices and concerns count in Brussels, a median of 53% across the nine European countries, excluding the UK, support having their own national referendums on continued EU membership. (For more on Europeans’ views on their voices being heard, see the Center’s 2014 survey “A Fragile Rebound for EU Image on Eve of European Parliament Elections.”)

    In addition, many want national governments, rather than Brussels, to control future migration both from outside the EU (a median of 74% across the nine continental European nations polled) and within the EU (a median of 66%). Moreover, a median of 51% prefer that their own governments, not Brussels, negotiate future trade agreements with the rest of the world.”

    If we do make a success with lots of new Trade deals around the World ther might be a major rethink amongst the other peoples of the EU.

  50. TOH: As for your other comments you just making your own ad hominems. So you, Norbold and Alec have just the point I was making about politeness. All very amusing.

    An argumentum ad hominem</i. would be something like, "you're clearly too thick to understand others' posts."

    But I didn't say anything like that. I don't think it's true, and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't say so.

    What I did say is – to paraphrase – that there is surely an obligation on those who comment here to do others the basic courtesy of reading their posts carefully and thinking a bit before launching into ill-considered responses.

    Now, you may think that is aimed at you and is therefore an ad hominem argument, but it is a general observation along the same lines as, "farting in a crowded room is inconsiderate."

    I went on to give an example of the consequences of your speed-reading. You may well think that constantly getting the wrong end of the stick doesn't cast you in an unfavourable light; I couldn't possibly comment. But – just a bit of friendly, amusing advice – do yourself a favour and put a bit of effort into understanding what people are saying before hitting the keyboard.

1 12 13 14 15 16