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 13 14 15 16
  1. Re-posted with (hopefully) correct italicising (must pay more attention to HTML…):

    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. 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

  2. Good afternoon from a rather autumnal PSRL (little outlook for an Indian Summer then)

    @ Barny, Oldnat and WB
    On the topic of a Federal structure for the UK, its the solution I have always favoured – although I would split up England (Merica, Wessex, E.Anglia and PSRL obvs).

    On the current status of Labour in Scotland, the lack of genuine heavy weight candidates for the leadership pays testament to the longer term decline of the party in Scotland.

    On the plus side for Labour, Corbyn’s appeal to younger voters in Scotland could provide the basis for revival for Labour, which in turn could lead to younger Scotts becoming more reconciled to the continuance of the Union. Therefore, I think Corbyn is one of the biggest threats to the SNP – its also hard for Sturgeon to wax lyrical about a progressive alliance etc and then attack him directly.

    Personally I think politics in Scotland has become really interesting – and moved away from the narrative of an inevitable monolithic dominance by the SNP.

    On other matters, I have Alec currently ahead on points.

  3. Somerjohn

    “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.”

    The trouble is I did not enter into an ill considered response. I was very specific about what I was responding to. My response was carefully considered, and I proved my point. I then went on to prove that a statement in the main thrust of his post Alec was illogical.

    I suggest the the best thing you could do is follow your own advice, specifically “do yourself a favour and put a bit of effort into understanding what people are saying before hitting the keyboard”.

  4. TOH: The trouble is I did not enter into an ill considered response. I was very specific about what I was responding to. My response was carefully considered, and I proved my point.

    My point was a general one and not about any single post of yours.

  5. Somerjohn
    If your post was a general one about my posts, then I think that is just another ad hominem and makes the point I made earlier. If the comments was not to me specifically I still think you are wrong. I think most, whether they read others quickly or otherwise, if they respond, do so with thought. It’s why most of us like this site; it is more intelligent than many others. Unfortunately Brexit has brought to light deep divisions in society which I believe were always there. I think the standard of debate has declined because it has become the main topic, and most of the comment here is just opinion, and passionate opinion at that, on both sides. I look forward to the time when we have left the EU and can see how successful or otherwise our new venture has been. Then we can have sensible discussion about the facts.

  6. Well, my conclusions regarding some Brexit supporters would have to be along the lines of;

    1) No, they don’t do detail
    2) Understanding what logic actually means they find challenging
    3) Which leads to them sometimes defeating themselves in debate, without even realising it
    4) And finally, they are easily amused

  7. Oh – and 5) They desperately want to claim that they are unfailingly polite, while everyone else is beastly

  8. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/05/tories-beware-left-captured-values-of-young

    Surprisingly downbeat assessment of conservative Britain from Tim Montgomerie.

  9. The Other Howard: I look forward to the time when we have left the EU and can see how successful or otherwise our new venture has been. Then we can have sensible discussion about the facts.

    My fear for myself and my wife – and for your grandchildren – is that sensible discussion on the facts will not be possible. Now, I know regardless and on past form, you won’t do enough logic to have that discussion meaningfully in 2030. But you aside, I fear that the UK will become a country where sensible discussion is no longer possible.

  10. Alex

    Retainers could equally be stereotyped

    1.They don’t do anything other than we can’t possibly survive without the EU.
    2 The only logic is there view is right everyone else is wrong.
    3. Subject to pompous over simplification .
    4.Finally have absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever.

  11. Turk

    “Retainers could equally be stereotyped ”

    Yes. My butler is exactly like that! :-)

  12. oldnat

    That predictive text is a bugger especially when your glasses end up in the levee .

  13. @ Oldnat

    Turk

    “Retainers could equally be stereotyped ”

    Yes. My butler is exactly like that! :-)

    At last some laugh out loud humour (I actually guffawed) instead of the playground “my marbles are bigger than your marbles” stuff there has been lately:

    Convinced Brexiteers: e.g Colin and TOH and Convinced remainers e.g. Alec and SomerJohn: take my advice you are engaged in a dialogue of the deaf, none of you will convince the others and the dispute is distressing to observe.

  14. @ Turk

    You should drive your Chevy to the Levee to pick up your glasses: mind you given it’s hurricane season I doubt, despite Don McClean that the levee will be dry when you get there :-)

  15. WB

    I live in Texas

  16. @Turk:

    Retainers could equally be stereotyped

    1.They don’t do anything other than we can’t possibly survive without the EU.

    Nonsense. I fully expect that, post Brexit, the UK will survive. It may lose bits, and will be economically and politically diished, but it will continue to exist. As will, for instance, Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
    2 The only logic is there view is right everyone else is wrong.

    Our logic is that if Brexiters dispute indications of adverse consequences, they should explain why they disagree, and how they see the bright future unfolding. Slogans don’t cut it.
    3. Subject to pompous over simplification .
    Any disinterested survey of posts re Brexit on UKPR would surely find that those on the remain side are more detailed, cogently argued and evidence-based.

    4.Finally have absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever.
    We know a joke when we see one.

    Having said all that, I’m coming round to thinking that Brexit is the right thing – for the EU. Sad about the UK, but there you go.

  17. Redrich

    “On the plus side for Labour, Corbyn’s appeal to younger voters in Scotland could provide the basis for revival for Labour, which in turn could lead to younger Scots becoming more reconciled to the continuance of the Union.”

    Could be – but I’d want to see some proper Scottish polling first, before commenting.

    However, the question is a tad more complicated now, since there are two Unions whose membership is under consideration.

    IIRC the No EU / No UK grouping was the smallest cohort when such preferences were last polled.

    The “young” in Scotland seem more than “reconciled” to the European Union. Most seem to be very strongly in favour of it.

    Whether that feeling is strong enough to overcome any wish to stay in the UK would probably not be clear until the type of Brexit that the UK wants/is able to get is clear.

  18. Hah! “economically and politically diished”

    Well dished indeed. But I actually meant diminished.

    BTW, Oldnat’s (re retainers):

    “Yes. My butler is exactly like that! :-)”

    Rather disproves the humourless point.

  19. ALEC

    “Oh – and 5) They desperately want to claim that they are unfailingly polite, while everyone else is beastly”

    That reminds men of the great John Peel, who once said “I know there are people who don’t like The Fall – they must be half-dead with beastliness. I spurn them with my toe.”

    I consider that a far more damaging indictment than being spurned by a TOH.

    A weak pun, admittedly, but surely no worse than:

    Brexit is happening. I refuse to talk any further about Brexit, read about Brexit, or attempt to understand Brexit. However, on the matter of Brexit, you are wrong, and I am right. QED.

    Cue: Delight at one’s own perspicacity, amusement at the obtuseness of one’s opponents, some kind of pottering about and the absent-minded humming of some, no doubt, “serious” music.

  20. TURK

    Nice to hear from you. I hope the damage to your property wasn’t too bad?

    DD gave his usual punchy performance in updating HoC this afternoon.

    He is certainly well briefed on detail.

    Kate Hoey warned her front bench not to vote against the Withdrawal Bill .

    Rees-Mogg asked DD if he should enquire of Barnier-if a Net Recipient EU Member left the EU-would The Commission make a payment to it in “Financial settlement” ?-DD said he already asked him that question :-)

    An interesting session if you can get it on iplayer.

  21. WB

    “Convinced Brexiteers: e.g Colin”

    Colin is an absteener on Brexit.

    (only because of the crossovers with other aspects of politics he may argue for Need it or express strong doubts about the EU)

  22. @Oldnax – “Yes. My butler is exactly like that! :-)”

    Very funny indeed.

    @WB – “Convinced remainers e.g. Alec and SomerJohn….”

    Just for clarity, and because I’m not certain how long you have been active on UKPR, I wouldn’t characterise my stance as being a ‘convinced remainer’.

    I have posted many, many times about what I see as the failings of the EU, the dreadfully bad design of the Euro, the impacts of EU protectionism on some of the poorest countries, the over reach by the commission and the creeping legislation by the back door via the ECJ. My eventual vote for remain was surprisingly marginal.

    I am for now content to stay as remain, and believe that this is the most likely outcome of this current spasm of pointlessly wasted energy, but I hold no certainty at all that at some future point I might switch to favouring leave.

    I would also add that since the vote, my attitudes to the type of Brexit proposed by some have hardened because I realised that the main points made by the leave campaign during the campaign weren’t just for short term political consumption – they actually believe this damaging and infantile guff.

  23. Need it = Brexit

  24. @Turk

    many apologies, I intended no disrespect I was simply reminded of American Pie, I understand the significant harm to Texas that has happened recently and do not in any way intend to trivialise it.

  25. WB: take my advice you are engaged in a dialogue of the deaf

    You’re absolutely right, of course. But I don’t personally have any expectation of converting the die-hards, but rather to take the side of reason against that of DM rabble-rousing. Age of enlightenment and all that stuff. And maybe, in the process, give a few undecided pause for thought.

    I’m reminded of a sad story a few years ago. A young child dressed in a Batman suit was killed in a fall from a building. He’d really believed he would be able to fly.

    If you saw that child about to step off, wouldn’t you try and stop him?

  26. LASZLO

    Thanks :-)

  27. Alec
    Since you were clearly addressing me with your comments I will reply to them.
    1) No, they don’t do detail – Well that is certainly not true, for example to be a successful long term investor you have to be able to do detail, and I have certainly been successful over at least 25 years since I retired. What you mean is some don’t respond in detail to many of the posts here. I am happy to agree with that, I’m not that often interested enough to do so. It’s not what I post here for.
    2) Understanding what logic actually means they find challenging- Clearly that does not apply to me as I have just used logic to show a statement of yours was illogical.
    3) Which leads to them sometimes defeating themselves in debate, without even realising it – Certainly have not done that today, but you clearly have.
    4) And finally, they are easily amused – Agreed, even more so now.

  28. Apologies too to Alec and Colin for attributing to them stances they don’t hold: my one excuse is that reading the last few pages that is not the impression you would get.

    Interesting point made by Rafael Behr in the Guardian about Henry VIII clauses in the Withdrawal Bill: would you wish to give your political opponents those powers?
    This ties in with something I wrote the other day that in terms of freedom from the EU there are different expectations from those leavers on the left and those on the right: how is each group going to react if the other wins the power and does the opposite in policy terms to that which they expect Brexit to achieve? I think we live in a seriously divided country and that the divisions could become much worse.

  29. @TOH does seem a bit desperate to make his point.

    At least now we can expect some caveats when people post about the EU’s falling share of world trade as if this is an obvious negative.

    That’s the centrepiece of this unedifying debate (with which I am now done) and I can content myself with the knowledge that we have at least forced that admission from some on here, even if they don’t seem tp realise that this was the point of the discussion.

  30. @WB

    Before your handsome apology, I had also thought that Turk was joking when he wrote, “That predictive text is a bugger especially when your glasses end up in the levee .”

    So I thought your light-hearted reference to American Pie was fair enough.

    I thought his “I live in Texas” was a sort of stony-faced indication that, unlike Louisiana or wherever McLean was singing about, Texas doesn’t have levees.

    But now I realise that this is a case of “absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever.”

  31. Alec
    Since you were clearly addressing me with your comments I will reply to them.

    1) No, they don’t do detail – Well that is certainly not true, for example to be a successful long term investor you have to be able to do detail, and I have certainly been successful over at least 25 years since I retired, and before that in business. What you mean is some don’t respond in detail to many of the posts here. I am happy to agree with that, I’m not that often interested enough to do so. It’s not what I post here for as I have explained ad nauseum.

    2) Understanding what logic actually means they find challenging- Clearly that does not apply to me as I have just used logic to show a statement of yours was illogical.

    3) Which leads to them sometimes defeating themselves in debate, without even realising it – Certainly have not done that today, but you clearly have.

    4) And finally, they are easily amused – Agreed, even more so now.

    TURK
    I might agree with your definitions but I won’t say so as the Remainers are providing unanswerable evidence for my earlier comments about ad hominems.

    Glad to hear from you and would echo Colin’s comments, I hope you and yours were not badly affected.

    MONOCHROMEOCTOBER
    That’s just another ad hominem, and you have added to the number of Remainers using them today. As I say very amusing.

    PIEFACE
    As to MONOCHROMEOCTOBER above.

    Great fun, have a good evening all.

  32. SOMERJOHN

    I have read some crass, thoughtless posts on UKPR over the years-but yours to WB @ 7.27 takes First Prize.

  33. Logic is apparently the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. Thus the mediaeval use of syllogisms in argument.
    Logic requires evidence, but evidence may be itself deduced or inferred from the existence of other evidence. What is primarily required is a rational connection between evidence relied upon and the proposition drawn from it.
    The problem with Logic is the development of Chaos Theory in relation to complex systems, where fractal levels of reasoning produce ranges or groups of “logical” results for any given series of parameters. This means that the syllogism has no place.
    If there is anything more complex in human affairs than modern political economy I am not aware of it, on that basis predictions must always fall within ranges or groups and I treat any assertion of absolutism as merely wishful thinking or desparate pessimism.
    Read into this what you will :-)

  34. Somerjohn,
    “It’s headed “The Brexit shipwreck” and casts an illuminating light on how our national adventure is perceived in Spain.”

    My thanks to everyone here who contibute to my political and economic education, including the leavers, who make debate possible.

    The Spanish are right, of course, and I think leave agree with them that the ‘Norway option’ would see a deterioration of the UKs position in many respects compared to membership. But it is on the table now as an alternative to hard Brexit, which would have all the same disadvantages but economic ones too.

    As I understand it, the reasons Norway found itself in that position are very similar to the UKs situation now.

  35. Colin

    But he will argue it is fact based and carefully thought out!

  36. I really wish Kate Hoey would leave the Labour Party. Or alternatively the Labour Party would leave Kate Hoey

  37. @WB – no need to apologise, but thank you anyway.

    I too have deep, deep concerns about the EU Withdrawal Bill. It’s a terror for democracy, and it’s astonishing that the Conservative Party is backing this. It demonstrates the complete capitulation to Brexit within the party, so much so that the very essence of the parliamentary supremacy that leavers purport to wish to reinstate is to be thrown away, given over to ministers appointed by the crown and their civil servants.

    It will be a disaster, mainly for the Conservatives themselves, but the damage to democracy is frightening. Tory MPs really should think very carefully about this as Behr suggests – what if Corbyn manages to squeeze a majority, and has all these huge powers handed to him by a malfunction Conservative predessessor?

  38. MIKE PEARCE

    It was , I thought, sensible advice.

    The Withdrawal Bill provides continuity of compliance without which UK has no hope of engaging in talks about a FTA.

    So voting against it , is denying a key enabler of successful Brexit.

    Presumably that is why KH -like Caroline Flint-doesn’t want HER Party to do it.

  39. TOH

    “ad hominem”

    Indeed, ad hominem paleu; homo TOH praeposuit semper.

    Bit rusty, but you get the idea…

  40. @ Colin

    The key problem with the withdrawal bill is the Henry VIII clauses.
    Constitutionally Parliament makes law, the executive administers the country within legal parameters and the Judiciary interpret the law. This is the separation of powers so beloved of the enlightment because it creates checks on the use of executive power. The problem with Henry VIII clauses is it will give the lawmaking power to the executive so that a minister who wants to do something which civil servants inform him/her is unlawful will be able without recourse to Parliament to change the law “as the minister considers appropriate” and so avoid any of those checks. Would you give John McDonnell that power?

  41. One can produce perfectly valid judgements (syllogism) that are untrue.

    Yet, logic as a discipline of epistemology is independent of evidence. It’s more like methodology than anything else. However, it offers the opportunity to question knowledge (here comes evidence), which is the scientific method (unlike most of social science).

    Chaos Theory by and large is a marketing term of “oh, I’m not bothered”. Simply: stating that everything is causally linked with everything else is not different from stating : nothing is linked to anything.

    While Alec’s points about the lack of logical rigour is valid, he doesn’t express it in the form that “your judgement (syllogism) has three parts and they are connected and hence valid, but the truth of the judgement (both that connects the subject and the predicate as well as what comes after the ergo) are outside of the syllogism, but logically should be examined within the frame of the syllogism so we could validate it. As ever so often in social science (and the discussions above,and in the last many months are in the field of social science) Thus principle is given up and a dichotomy is created – adherence to the syllogism irrespective of the evidence (confirmation bias), or selective and arbitrary use of the data without a question (data mining).

    Unmediated contradictions maintain invalid dichotomies – and this is what we are witnessing. There is simply no solution in the Leave-Remain, because none of the issues discussed trigger mediation. It is mainly because Brexit is actually not a question. The type of society and economy we want in about 10 years time (although it could be much quicker) and beyond. Then Leave and Remain are just simply subordinate questions, prerequisites to that question.

    There is obviously no consensus on how that society and economy should look like, so Brexit is a convenient, yet very practical subject to fight that debate. However without answering the question of the future, there cannot be meaningful debate on Brexit, even though positioning papers are written, discussed, buildings may need to be detected it demolished. Etc.

  42. TOH

    And BTW, FWIW, my comment related entirely to what you have posted on this site. If you choose to share your hobbies and personal preferences on an open forum, they are fair game – if you disagree, keep them to yourself..

    I look forward to you sharing what will no doubt be a damning deconstruction of MES, though I doubt I will extricate much amusement from it.

  43. Somerjon
    “I’m coming round to thinking that Brexit is the right thing – for the EU”
    Yes. Which will be a problem for the Uk when it needs to rejoin. Best shot is to finagle simply cancelling Brexit.

    While I understand there would be a huge loss of UK party political capital with half of voters if they did this, they might in the end have no choice. I appreciate the arguments made earlier why Brexit might now be politically unstoppable, but they come up against the other immovable object of future political annihilation from wilfully following a course to disaster. It will not wash following a disastrous Brexit to claim that you were simply following orders.

    Of course, if Brexit goes well its proponents will be heros. But they patently do not believe this will be the outcome or they would be acting differently now. I recall Blair on the eve of war arguing ‘trust me’.

    WB,
    ” I think we live in a seriously divided country and that the divisions could become much worse.”
    Yes, I think so too. Corbyn’s success and indeed the leave vote can both be attributed to this same cause. The bipolarity of the election result shows this return to stark division politics.

  44. @R HUCKLE

    My data is rather old and stems from a conversation I had with a woman I met on a date whom worked for an NGO in bangladesh. She was talking to a set of USAID representatives as she was working with farmers to improve their production so that bangladesh would be self sufficient in food production (I believe the country still has 25% tariffs on rice) They were adamant that in the long term Bangladesh should not try and be self sufficient in rice production but should go for cash crops that would allow US and other to export rice to them. Currently bangladesh imports rice from vietnam whom themselves have moved to a grow food for vietnam first approach.

    The USAID guys believe they could sell long grained rice to bangladesh below the price it was being produced in the country.

  45. @Danny

    No one is arguing that Brexit will be an instant success. It’s a long term change with a probable short term negative consequence but longer term benefits.

    Corbyn did not do well because of some cheap promises to reverse Brexit – he respects the result of the referendum and deserves credit for that.

  46. Colin: I have read some crass, thoughtless posts on UKPR over the years-but yours to WB @ 7.27 takes First Prize.

    Well, that’s interesting. Here’s the sequence:

    1. Leave-inclined poster proclaims the superior sense of humour of Leavers (Remainers…”Finally have absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever.”)

    2. Same poster writes: “That predictive text is a bugger especially when your glasses end up in the levee .”

    3. Remain-inclined poser assumes this is an example of superior leave humour.

    4. Original poster writes, somewhat cryptically: “i live in Texas.”

    5. Poster in point 3 realises the inference could be “don’t joke about levees with someone who lives in Texas” and apologises.

    6. Another poster (me!) outlines why it was entirely reasonable to think the levee/glasses remark was humorous , rather than a allusion to the appalling effects of Storm Harvey. (I’m still not convinced it wasn’t humorous, especially as the poster had previously told us he wasn’t personally affected).

    7. Yet another poster (you!) jumps in on the assumption that I was mocking the afflicted. Afflicted! By loss of glasses?

    There was a time when we Brits rather prided ourselves on our iconoclastic humour. Life of Brian and all that. But perhaps we have to forget all that now that the Brexit orthodoxy has taken hold.

  47. @ WB

    “[…] in terms of freedom from the EU there are different expectations from those leavers on the left and those on the right: how is each group going to react if the other wins the power and does the opposite in policy terms to that which they expect Brexit to achieve? […]”

    This might well be true, but isn’t the cause here that much of the debate in the EURef became about policy in different areas, rather than the constitutional question actually on the ballot of how and where we determine policy? My reading is that the media, politicians, campaigners and (maybe moreso than anyone else) the electorate found it much easier (and familiar) to deal with arguments on policy and ended up debating which constitutional setup would most likely lead to specific policies, rather than debating the intrinsic pros and cons of different constitutional options themselves.

    Once we had campaigns run on policy lines but where we voted not on a policy issue but a constitutional issue, weren’t we inevitably going to get that problem? Whoever won the EURef and whichever party was in power either in the UK and the EU, someone somewhere was going to get upset when it transpired that the EURef hadn’t really been a vote for a manifesto of policies and/or a team of representatives to implement policy.

  48. @DANNY

    We will not be rejoining. I say that as a remainer whom would want to rejoin. I do not think that we would about face and rejoin at any point even if things go bad.

    The rational for leaving is rather diverse and therefore hard to pin down.

    I can understand those that argue that we do not want to be part of a closer EU with fiscal transfers and the like. but you have people whom are arguing that on the one hand the EU is a bastion of globalisation and neo liberalism and on the other hand it is a bastion of socialism protectionism and authoritarianism in the same leave camp. basically we have spent so long rubbishing the institution that we as society do not have a consensus as to what it is.

    i am not sure that we could ever agree. I find the problem similar to that of welfare. If you ask people whether they think welfare is a goiod thing they will instinctively think of vicky pollard, benefit street and the like and then you get resounding negativity. when you ask about the different parts of welfare such as disabled benefits, tax credits and the like and the attitude softens markedly. The EU is the bogeyman, similar to welfare. You have people arguing on this very site that it is basically germany plus hangers on and this site paradoxically is rather polite in the main.

    However the EU is not the reason that given a chance to invest you would chose Bristol over Stoke, That has everything to do with the local and national government and nothing to do with the EU. But we can use the idea of the EU to be the thing that means we are changing this problem.

    many people whom voted for leave, where voting for change, Lord Ashcroft book basically said it best “in the end if the question was are you happy with the way things are going you would have got a similar result.

    it is why I believe the many leave voters will be as unhappy as remain voters when all is said an done. the real problems that we need to solve will not be touched by leaving the EU. So for me it is a best a diversion at worst the most horrible of deflections.

    My only hope, which in fairness dies every time I read the telegraph comments section, is that we can have an adult discussion as to what we want outside brexit, although I fear we are as equally divided about that as we are about everything else.

  49. @LEAVERS
    @REMAINER

    we are all as thick as each other, sometime we all make stupid comments, sometimes we all make good comments. I like to think I am not as bad as my worst day and not as good as a best

    ;-)

    can we just all get along

    ;-P

1 13 14 15 16