There were two new voting intention polls yesterday, plus ICM’s fortnightly poll this morning. Topline figures are

ICM/Guardian (22nd-24th): CON 40%(-2), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 8%(+1)
Survation/Mail on Sunday (22nd): CON 38%(nc), LAB 42%(-1), LDEM 8%(+1) (tabs)
Opinium (19th-22nd): CON 42%(+1), LAB 40%(-1), LDEM 6%(+1) (tabs)

Changes are from a fortnight ago for ICM, last week for Opinium and the start of September for Survation.

One Conservative lead, two Labour leads and no consistent trend in either direction. Survation and ICM were both conducted after Theresa May’s Florence speech, so give us the first chance to gauge reactions to it. Survation asked about whether people supported or opposed paying £20bn to the EU during a transition period when Britain had access to the single market – 34% of people said they would support it, 47% said they would be opposed. ICM asked a similar question, but found 41% of people supported the idea and 31% were opposed – the ICM tables aren’t available yet, so I don’t know what the particularl wording was and whether it might explain the difference.


665 Responses to “Latest voting intentions from ICM, Survation and Opinium”

1 10 11 12 13 14
  1. TW,

    I love the fact that in the same post you claim Moody’s are a joke, even though they are probably the worlds most used rating agency, and then ask people to check Venezuelas credit rating.

    Peter.

  2. Had a look at the Boeing v Bombardier dispute and I have to say Boeing seem to have a point.

    Although it is true that the C-100 is smaller than the 737Max so it could be in a different class, the top capacity of the 100 is about the same lowest for the Max, so they could do the same job depending on configuration.

    Boeings claim is that this was ruled out because Delta were offered them for just under $20m each when they cost over $30m to make, which in their view was dumping.

    That said I haven’t looked at Bombardiers counter claim.

    Peter.

  3. Boris speech

    Can i urge remainers to listen to the boris speech at the opening of the free trade institute last night if only on the basis that you should know your enemy. It is in the brexit central site which for remainers with high blood pressure i would not recommend.

    he is the only politician who could deliver it and if he does do it at conference then no deal brexit is even more certain and hammond is toast.

  4. Despite being in the same potential predicament domestically as MONOCHROME OCTOBER, I do find it difficult to see justification for the EU’s jurisdictional point.

    There are exceptions for diplomatic staff of course, and sometimes limited ones for those under military discipline, but I cannot think of any example of another country that would expect its private citizens living abroad to remain under its jurisdiction in preference to that of the territory in which they reside. Even the US doesn’t demand that. And my general rule of thumb is that if even the US thinks something’s pushing it a bit, it must be pushing it a hell of a lot.

    There seems to be a bit of a tendency in the partisan in this debate to suspend critical faculties and accept all the positions of the side they support as reasonable. In fact I think both sides have their fair share of demands that cannot possibly be accepted, as a deliberate negotiating ploy. This is surely an example.

  5. education and the tories

    What if TN announced at conference that she was going to have a Royal commission on the funding of Higher and Vocational education to include student debt past and present to report by 2020 welcoming the submissions of all political parties.

    Would labour welcome it and assist; if not why not?

    I am not saying this is going to happen but….

  6. @ S Thomas

    if that does happen next week then it appears there are only two possibilities

    (1) you are witch
    (2) you are Theresa May (in which case I claim my £5:00)

  7. Peter Cairns: The idea as stated in one paper that we could cancel orders for chinooks or surveillance aircraft is just daft.

    I agree there are no real helicopter alternatives to Chinook (though the versions supplied to the UK have been plagued with problems) but there is a readily available off-the-shelf alternative to the Boeing 737-based P8A maritime surveillance aircraft that has been ordered. It is the Airbus C-295, which is based on a military transport rather than a passenger airliner so is much tougher, can use shorter runways, is more versatile (can carry the same 10 tonne loads as Chinook), costs a third as much and is much cheaper to run. It has longer endurance, and its surveillance and defensive and offensive weapons systems (including torpedo-launch) are fully proven. Unlike the P8A, it can be equipped with aerial refuellling. As a turboprop, it is slower than the P8A, but the ability to fly slowly and ‘loiter’ and its greater manoeuvrability are arguably more important in a surveillance and maritime attack aircraft.

    When the USA found the awarding (on merit) of the USAF tanker contract to Airbus politically unacceptable, it simply cancelled it and awarded it to Boeing (which still hasn’t got the planes working properly, unlike the Airbus version which is in full service with the RAF and other NATO forces, and of course has wings built in the UK). So if we are keen on ‘taking back control’ in a meaningful sense, what better way to demonstrate that we are not there to be walked over by a bully?

    We have relied on other European countries for maritime patrol cover since 2010, so it can hardly be argued that the P8A contract (for a barely-adequate 9 aircraft, because of their high unit cost) cannot be dropped because time would be lost in switching to a replacement.

    Finally (and I’m assuming anyone who’s got this far has at least a passing interest in these matters, so no apology for too much detail), there is an argument for also using the C295 transport version instead of the Chinook, as it is far cheaper to buy and operate than the helicopter.

  8. Taken from the Leave Alliance Twitter feed. Makes you think if this is true.

    The Leave Alliance @LeaveHQ

    8. We do not think there is a sincere effort to conclude a deal with the EU. This whole thing is a sham. Pure theatricals.
    7. And some very very deeply corrupt influences pushing for a firesale of UK assets. They are manipulating Tory ignorance.
    6. Most of them think the WTO option is workable. You’re dealing with some exceptionally stupid and blinkered people here.
    5. These Tories would actually torch the entire British economy for the sake of leaving & preventing a moderate process.
    4. At the very least that will entail the single market. And that’s why the Tories will walk out of talks very soon.
    3. They know that by then Labour will have something approximating a workable position on Brexit that’s better than theirs.
    2. They must also know by now that there is no possibility of them winning the next general election. They’ve blown that.
    1. If the Tories have done their sums they know there is no possibility Brexit being concluded before the election.

  9. Barnier and DD – seems to be a very subtle softening in style from Barnier but no real substance.

    Does anyone know where to find the ‘green light’ info that DD was on about. Verhofstadt often talks about ti as well.

    Its the check list of points on each of the 3 phase one aspect and details ‘progress’. It seems like Barnier wants all lights to be green so keen to know where we stand as I suspect some of the orange or red lights are never going to turn green until we can talk future relationship.

  10. @ PETER – Moodys tend to lock the door after the horse had bolted. With Venezuela, Chavez burnt down the barn back in the late 1990s and the horse has been slowly dying ever since – for sure some US political influence on the rating agency’s opinion but would you want to buy Venezuela govt debt and hold it in your pension?

  11. @ R HUCKLE – twitter feed! really? is that HMG policy? DD and Barnier have just held press conf – probably better to listen to that than twitter feeds from peeps not involved.

  12. TW @ Peter Cairnes SNP.

    “but would you want to buy Venezuela govt debt and hold it in your pension?”

    I cant speak for Peter but you may be wrong.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/23/venezuelan-bonds-are-fabulous-investment-you-don-mind-starvation/qplQj6i5Rq2JXSXJgrGWHO/story.html

  13. The green light Brexit info on citizen’s rights post round 4 is here, along with previous rounds. a bit more green but still some red

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-technical-note-on-the-comparison-of-eu-uk-positions-on-citizens-rights

    looking for NI and divorce bill. if anyone finds it first could they please post. thx

  14. s thomas Boris speech

    Can i urge remainers to listen to the boris speech at the opening of the free trade institute last night if only on the basis that you should know your enemy. It is in the brexit central site which for remainers with high blood pressure i would not recommend.

    he is the only politician who could deliver it and if he does do it at conference then no deal brexit is even more certain and hammond is toast.

    That is 4m 42s of my life I will not get back. It was platitudinous drivel, so shallow that if it were a ditch, you could not drown in it.

    Yes, Hammond might be toast, if the faithful are rewarding his shallowness. If he is the only comedian who could deliver that speech, its about like saying only Benny Hill could deliver a Benny Hill show.

  15. Cairns, not Cairnes. Soz Peter.

  16. For those that haven’t signed up to it yet you can get all the Brexit discussion info via an email sign-up – see link. The link also has most of the HMG side regarding statements, etc. – some are pure propo but lots of facts. Better than twitter for sure :)

    https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/brexit

    The NI and bill elements don’t seem to have a ‘green-red’ light update but it might be available from the EC side. Those two apsects of withdrawal far more contentious so possibly not as transparent!

    Looking at the citizens rights update, most of the ‘easier’ elements are now green, a few of the red ones look like they have some room to compromise but some of the red ones look very difficult to achieve unless one side caves in on court jurisdiction.

  17. @ MARKW – luckily the UK pension industry is highly regulated or are you going to credit the EU with that?

    Judging by the vast unfunded pension liabilities that are cropping up in the bill discussion I’d say UK is way ahead of EU regarding unfunded pension schemes.

  18. Peter,

    “I cannot think of any example of another country that would expect its private citizens living abroad to remain under its jurisdiction in preference to that of the territory in which they reside.”

    I think I am right in saying that French Law is applicable to all French citizens regardless of Country. If it’s illegal in France it’s illegal for the French.

    Peter.

  19. TW, er, I posted the link on investments in Venezuela to show your casual assertion was incorrect.

  20. I do think that domestic stuff is getting ignored, or accepted by the gov and Local Councils.

    Over the last few years I have occasionally mentioned that I often see people living in tens and vans, even under skate park ramps.

    This issue has now made the national press.

    This road is on one of my regular dog walk routes and the number of vans has grown over the last few years.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4925292/Angry-clashes-dozens-vandwellers-line-city-streets.html

  21. Somerjohn,

    There’s no doubt that US politicians ran a mile when airbus won the tanker order, but you can’t really blame Boeing for exploiting the cowards in Congress.

    Keeping jobs and votes in their states was clearly more important for them than getting the best plane for the armed forces.

    I think we should learn from that.

    The C-295 is a good aircraft but it is neither a match for the chinook or Posidon let alone able to meet both roles.

    As a MPA it’s okay but it’s transit time to station is 40% lower and although it has the same range on paper with a full load it it can’t match the Poseidon which at a greater range can stay on station for 4 hrs. It’s fine for Turkey, which is why they bought it and I’d be happy to have it for Scotland…. But as long as the UK wants to patrol the Atlantic out beyond the Azores it’s not a viable option.

    As to replacing the Chinook, as far as I am aware the C-295 needs a runway as it can’t land or take off vertically, nor does it have a rear ramp so it can’t deploy troops quickly let alone small vehicles, let alone catty them as an underslung load.

    You could argue for the Leonardo option of the C-27, which does have a ramp and is largely compatible for pairs with our Hercules fleet but it still wouldn’t do what we need that the chinook does.

    The only thing that gives you a decent mix between the C-295 and the Chinook is the Osprey…

    and it’s Hugely Expensive, American and made by Boeing….

    Oh, and in my personal opinion, I also think it’s a deathtrap!!!!

    Peter.

  22. So this is what was said and what it means;

    Said;

    “Decisive steps forward” have been made in the latest round of UK-EU talks”,

    Brexit Secretary David Davis

    Means;

    “We have a Conference next week and I have to pretend we are making progress and getting our way!”

    Said;

    “There were still “big gaps” between the sides on some of the withdrawal issues.”

    EU negotiator Michel Barnier

    Means;

    “Well that was another waste of time!”

    Peter.

  23. Blinky barnier

    Obviously under orders barnier has started to blink a lot. He can sniff the breeze and when he looks for hard line support from France and Germany he finds that they are not paying attention. Macron is talking to himself in a darkened room about how the EU needs to be more but less than it is now as his countrymen fume about German takeovers of their shipbuilding and rail building industry. Meanwhile Mutte finds she has to stop gloating at TM as she marches inexorably right and to the east where German Males have deserted her. Her concentration is on domestic politics and the last thing she needs is pressure from german industry about brexit. In short Macron (the new Chuka)darling of the new EU is dead as a dodo and mutte is seriously weakened. If only Germany had a CorbynI,for one. would be willing to lend them ours all in the spirit of Euro co-operation you understand.

  24. @TOH – “There is a simple answer to that, No! Even suggesting that the ECJ should have rights over citizens in the UK when we have left the EU is insulting. No other sovereign state in the World would accept that.”

    Sigh!

    It’s such a red line that the UK has subjected itself to the authority of the ECHR since 1959.

    The UK has subjected itself to the authority of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea since 1994.

    The UK has signed up to the International Court of Justice since 1945, and since 2002 UK citizens can be liable to trial in the International Criminal Court when specific conditions are met, with no ability of the UK government to prevent this.

    There are also a host of other supra national quasi judicial authorities that we are bound by (including the Appelant Body of the WTO), so no, I think that the idea of ‘No other sovereign state in the World’ accepting the juridiction of a supra national court over it’s citizens is completely wrong, as proven multiple times by your own country.

    The entire myth making about the ECJ is baloney, and while it has a wider reach than most other interntional courts we have happily signed up to, that is purely because the management of the EU is a more complex system. There is no principle involved in the ECJ jurisdiction that doesn’t apply to the UK in multiple other examples and virtually every other sovereign state in the world. You are wrong – entirely.

  25. MONOCHROME OCTOBER
    You misunderstand when I said citizens I meant any citizens including those from the EU, hence my question would the EU accept the reverse once. The cases you report are totally irrelevant to the argument IMO. You hold totally different views in part because of your personal situation, so to some extent I understand you putting your wife before your country but I don’t accept it.

    PeterW
    Excellent post to MONOCHROME and I agree the EU demand is one they made knowing it is totally unacceptable.

    It is worth reading what D. Davis said in relation to citizen’s rights at the end of the 4th round of negotiation today. His full comments can be found at:
    h ttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/david-davis-closing-remarks-at-the-end-of-the-fourth-round-of-eu-exit-negotiations-in-brussels

    On citizens rights he said (full quote for Alec’s benefuit):
    “Citizens’ rights
    On citizens’ rights, we have made real progress on issues which will enable citizens on both sides to continue to live their lives broadly as they do now.
    We will publish an updated table later today which shows many areas of agreement.
    So I am pleased to report that we have agreed most aspects of social security coordination, building on the progress in the last round, which I told you about last time.
    The United Kingdom thinks that in some cases we must go beyond the strict requirements of current EU law in order to protect citizens. For example we have offered the European Union guaranteed rights of return for settled EU citizens in the UK, in return for onward movement rights, right for onward movement, for our UK nationals who currently live within the EU27.
    And I look forward to the response of the Commission to this offer, once they have consulted with the Member States.
    But we must also acknowledge that a major question remains open between us – it relates to the enforcement of citizens’ rights after we leave the European Union.
    The UK has been clear that, as a third country outside of the European Union, it would not be right for this role to be performed by the European Court of Justice.
    But we have listened to the concerns that have been raised – and as a direct result of hearing those concerns the United Kingdom has committed to incorporating the final withdrawal agreement fully into UK law. Direct effect if you like.
    We also recognise the need to ensure the consistent interpretation of EU law concepts.
    We have not agreed the right mechanism for doing this yet but discussions this week have again been productive.
    And we have provided further reassurance on how European Union citizens will be able to apply for a new status, once we leave.
    And we know that those already holding permanent residency documents should not have to go through the full process.
    So we presented early thinking on detailed processes and plans on how we might ensure this does not happen.
    It’s all about providing certainty, clarity and stability for EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU27. And represents pragmatic compromises to our shared challenge of ending anxiety for those citizens.
    The shape of a deal is becoming clearer. We need to continue to work to address this in the interest of citizens on both sides.”
    I understand that the EU negotiators are continuing to insist on the ECJ as final arbiter. If they continue with that then there will be no deal IMO as I said for many months now.

  26. @Colin

    “Right now, Corbyn is in tune with the public. Those Tories trying to halt the socialist surge need to be young , talented and definitely not Boris Johnson”

    Iain Martin
    Times.

    Absolutely spot on.

    And his article , which points to McDonnell , not Corbyn , as the key man in Labour’s Brave New World is, in my view, also on the button.:-

    ” McDonnell , who is much brighter and more dangerous than Corbyn”

    I write as someone outside of political parties.

    I do agree that McDonnell is the key man for Labour. I found his speech far more interesting to listen to.

    I’m not particularly fond of Leaders who do the ‘vision’ thing. I always feel like I’m being preached to – something I don’t respond well to.

    McDonnell has an intellectual sharpness that I repond to much more. It’s one of the reasons I always preferred Brown to Blair.

    I’ll agree McDonnell is very bright, but dangerous, that is rather subjective to one’s own perspective.

  27. No real change in the talks it seems. It’s abundantly clear, as it was from way back, that the UK needs to agree payments before things move on. Barniers statement was telling, when he said that the UK has agreed to meet it’s obligations, but it now has to say what these are.

    The EU is directing the pace and May’s bid for a transition tells them that they are in control.

  28. Peter Cairns

    i must say that i am very impressed with your knowledge of Military kit.

  29. @PETERW

    I think the issue is that the Tories have been rather weak with regards protecting the judiciary which is why I think they have pushed this. I also think the Home office doing a many low user IQ things as possible does not help and more over that the Home office basically ignoring judicial rulings does not help either.

    My view is that this has become something of an issue because of whole anti immigration stance tkaen and the Daily Mail view of our Judiciary as enemies of the people and the limp support given my the Tories after that.

    Now considering that you have Poland looking like being on a collision course with the EU of the independence of their judges I can see why this becomes more important.

    I felt it was going to be the easiest one to solve but actually people will be the hardest ones to solve because the long term implications.

  30. Alec

    Even bigger sigh!

    Your just deliberately missing the point I am making – entirely, as usual.

    I am well aware of the ECHR and I want us to leave that as well once we have left the EU. Something that many Conservatives also want. I am also aware of the of the appelant body of the

    1. Name on soverign state outside the EU that allows the ECJ to be final arbiter over EU citizens in that country?

    2. Would the EU accept the UK Supreme Court as final arbiter on the rights of UK citizens in the EU?

  31. Peter Cairns: as far as I am aware the C-295 needs a runway as it can’t land or take off vertically, nor does it have a rear ramp so it can’t deploy troops quickly let alone small vehicles

    Do I detect sarcasm? Of course the C-295 needs a runway, or at least a prepared strip, but of course it has a rear ramp: it’s a transport aircraft, able to take palletised loads, light vehicles and troops:

    One of the great strengths of the C295 MPA is its versatility, the rear cargo door and palletised mission systems allow the same aircraft to be used for a number of roles.

    Standard 463L pallet compatibility means that in an expeditionary deployment it can carry its own spares or other stores, as an example. from http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/02/future-maritime-patrol-part-4-cheaper-options/

    For transport, a mix of C-295s and some of our existing Chinook fleet would provide greater capability and flexibility than Chinooks alone (of course, for the time being we also have some Hercules).

    Comparisons of range don’t seem straightforward, but the P8A is quoted as having a 1200 mile combat radius and 4 hours on station. As the Azores are 1600 miles away, a P8A that’s flown to “the Atlantic out beyond the Azores” won’t be able to patrol there for more than a couple of hours. What can it usefully do in that vast area for such a short time? The C-295 is quoted as having 11 hours’ endurance. Of course, in practice both planes would fly to the Azores, refuel there and take up station.

    Probably the biggest role for UK MPAs post-Brexit will be fisheries patrol, for which the P8A is vastly over-specified.

    This isn’t the place for a detailed military discussion. My point was simply that cancellation of at least one Boeing defence contract is a practical possibility.

  32. @PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    I have had a ride in V22-Osprey a device I was part of a design team is used as the main processor somewhere on the damn thing, They are not as dangerous as people think they are and much of the issues with the design are often part of the pre 2001 where they got a major flight systems software update. The Sea Knight they replace has a similar crash rating but it only takes a crash with something of lower flight hours for it to be seen a bad.

    There is a article in the Dallas Morning News about the craft. My other claim to fame is that Typhoon has multiple devices I worked on when I was in GEC Plessey Semiconductors back in the day.

  33. @ MARKW – ??

    The question to Peter that you jumped in on was would HE want his pension fund investing in Venezuela.

    UK pension funds have strict limits on what and where they can invest following some dodgy previous practises and experiences that I’m sure you are aware of – unfunded pension schemes still haunts many UK companies (something EU seem to have no grip on whatsoever). OK, if you have a SIPP or a more aggressive pension provider you can indeed invest in funds that might invest in distressed debt (such as Venezuela) – personal choice and allowing adults to decide – but the question was would Peter want his pension invested in Venezuela debt.

  34. @ TOH
    putting your wife before your country but I don’t accept it.

    I am afraid that my estimation of your worth as a poster has descended to zero as a result of this post: you cannot even begin to see that to MO his country is taking a spectacularly disastrous step which just happens to impact on his personal circumstances.
    MO is no less a patriot than you when he argues that his country should not have voted as it did because of his view of the outcome that follows it.
    I consider your political prejudices are overwhelming your intellect.

  35. Alec

    I somehow lost some of my post. The 3rd paragraph should have read.

    I am also aware of the of the appelant body of the WTO. All that is irrelevent to the point I was making.

  36. @TOH – thanks for the full quote. It really demonstrates just how daft this hang up on the ECJ really is.

    For domestic political considerations Conservatives have decided that ECJ jurisdiction over anything is a red line. That is a purely political decision, as we accept all manner of supra national jurisdictions as and when these suit. There is no point of legal of sovereignty principle at stake here whatsoever, and those who claim there is are simply displaying their ignorance of history.

    The question is going to be how the issue of ECJ jurisdiction will be solved. In practical terms, I fully expect the UK to be required to meet ECJ interpretations in many areas after Brexit. In any practical sense, we will remain subject to the ECJ. However, this may well not be directly, but there will be a formalised system of some manner to ensure this.

    Davis has admitted as much (at least as far as EU citizens in the UK are concerned) when he says –

    “We also recognise the need to ensure the consistent interpretation of EU law concepts. We have not agreed the right mechanism for doing this yet…..”.

    The UK has conceded that EU citizens rights will be protected under ECJ based case law, now and (critically) in the future, and all that remains is to establish a mechanism that satisfies the EU that this recognition will be recognised in terms of the practical application of the law. In summary, what Davis is accepting is that if future interpretive ECJ case law develops, UK law will follow.

    That some leavers cannot see this as a distinct and clear shift in the UK’s position doesn’t surprise me. The issue with the ECJ was never going to be one of a total rejection of it’s rulings after Brexit, but instead an attempt to establish an arms length system of de facto jurisdiction that contained enough PR spin to keep Daily Mail readers satisfied.

    The fact that May wants to pull us out of Euratom just because the ECJ has legal authority over it just shows how daft this hang up over the ECJ is, but that’s what you get for 40 years of misinformation and biased press coverage.

  37. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    Do you believe there is no rationale for ECHR now and it should be disbanded? If so why?
    is there a problem with all supranational bodies?

    Just curious

  38. WB

    From what you have just said I think exactly the same about you.

    I don’t have problems with people disagreeing with Brexit but I do have problems with people who would put another court above our own when we no longer belong to the EU in regard of citizens rights. As just reiterated, see above, the UK Government agrees with my view and always has done.

  39. @TOH – there won’t be any, as this situation has never arisen before.

    The point is that we want a deal with the EU, covering legacy citizenship rights from the time we were EU members as well as trade arrangements in the future.

    It would be perfectly normal for such an agreement to conclude that specific areas of citizenship rights pre Brexit could still be handled under the ECJ if we so wished, with any rights accrued post Brexit being dealt with via UK courts. A little messy, but then it’s a messy situation.

    Likewise matters of trade could be dealt with via the ECJ if we wanted, but some UK involvement in the staffing, management and funding for the ECJ would then be expected.

    The point is that there is nothing particularly radical or different about the UK accepting ECJ authority post Brexit. It would just be another slightly complicated international treaty agreement.

  40. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    Not at all. I want a UK Bill of Rights and Responsibilities as was originally proposed by the Conservatives, now in abeyance sadly.

    I am all for human rights but I also want responsibilities enshrined in the same piece of legislation.

  41. @ALEC

    I am not sure that the Uk could be a full member of Euroatom without being in the EU but they will get associate membership as I understand it I am not sure what that means for ECJ jurisdiction though

    @CATMANJEFF

    Leader do espousing Chancellors do nuts and bolts. if Leaders did nuts and bolts then I think there would be no vision thing at all.

    I have always found McDonnell interesting in that I felt he would never get a chance to do nuts and bolts without Corbyn. I too felt that Blair was rather shallow and Brown rather deeper in thought I just did not think that Brown had a political instincts of a Leader where as Blair did even on the point of Iraq where I would have bowed to Public pressure and taken the out that Bush had given him he believed he would survive such a bad decision and he was right. Whereas Brown I felt took his PM role much more seriously, things like hand writing every letter to deceased serviceman’s family for example is a person that understood duty in my book. At a time when people are selling shallow patriotism it was actually rather touching to see,

  42. The Other Howard: I don’t have problems with people disagreeing with Brexit but I do have problems with people who would put another court above our own when we no longer belong to the EU in regard of citizens rights. As just reiterated, see above, the UK Government agrees with my view and always has done.

    It is quite invidious to be put in the position of choosing between your family and your country. But for me, the choice is easily made.

  43. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    Germany has a bill of rights and responsibilities and they are part of the ECHR so that having or not having a bill of rights does not preclude being part of ECHR or being a signee to the declaration of Human rights I am not sure why you believe leaving is a good thing.

  44. @TOH – “I don’t have problems with people disagreeing with Brexit but I do have problems with people who would put another court above our own when we no longer belong to the EU in regard of citizens rights. As just reiterated, see above, the UK Government agrees with my view and always has done.”

    But they just have. Only the mechanism to manage this is left to agree.

    Do you understand this?

  45. Alec

    I assume from what you say that you cannot name one country that would accept the ECJ in respect of Citizens Rights but you craftily side step by saying it is unique.

    So a third question:
    3. Name one country that is not a vassal state that accepts another countries courts as supreme in matters relating to that other countries citizens when living the first country. (PeterW made the same point at 11.42).

    Could I also have your answer to my second question please?

  46. Alec

    I quote from D. Davis this morning:

    “The UK has been clear that, as a third country outside of the European Union, it would not be right for this role to be performed by the European Court of Justice.”

    Absolutely clear. What’s not to understand about that?

  47. EU citizens remaining in the UK will, if an agreement is reached, retain their existing rights. Many of the EU citizens’ existing rights are defined by EU law, at present that means that interpretation of those rights are governed by ECJ jurisdiction. If that jurisdiction is removed it will mean that those rights will be interpreted by UK courts, in other words UK courts will be interpreting EU law, this is the problem that needs to be overcome in the negotiation.
    The EU wants certainty that those rights will be interpreted consistently with the ECJ, the UK wants the ECJ to exercise no jurisdiction.
    The trick is to find a way in which that certainty is provided to the EU by the UK courts. The problem is that, constitutionally, no Parliament can bind its successors, there is no written UK constitution which would entrench rights of EU citizens and the UK courts are required to interpret the law as it is set out in legislation from Parliament. Hence, in short, the next government could remove all of those rights no matter what the treaty said. Perhaps a constitutional convention creating a federal UK state with a written constitution could overcome this, however I think that’s unlikely to happen within the current timescale to Brexit.
    I am afraid many people hail the importance of the rule of law without any real understanding as to what that means. In the UK it means that the courts operate a rule of recognition as to what is and is not a law, there are only two primary sources the common law (previous judicial decisions of Courts of Record (i.e. the High Court and above) and Acts of Parliament (Devolved Government powers to pass Acts derive from Acts of Parliament and could, constitutionally, be overturned by Westminster) and regulations made under Acts of Parliament.
    The bottom line is that the EU don’t trust us with their citizens rights, and given the level of antipathy show to the EU by some of my compatriots, the rhetorical question might be why the hell should they!

  48. @ ALEC – I think the thing you are missing is that HMG’s ‘red’ lines (shown as red boxes in the official talks check list) are fundamental to both HMG and a lot of voters view on exactly what is meant by “leave”

    The end of ECJ jurisdiction is something both Corbyn and May want – for very different reasons I might add!

    We might cave in – only May+DD know the terms under which we might but a lot of voters would view that as an outrage and not really leaving.

    HMG has already made considerable concessions by stating ECJ rulings and future EU law will be considered in UK rulings – any lawyer would tell you that has meaning. I think we can creep a little further via clear statement of voluntary acceptance. It’s been mentioned but needs to be accepted by EU in principle before it can be codified. This is basically the Swiss approach so it clearly has precedent.
    UK is approaching it from the opposite direction to Swiss and I understand EU don’t want to go that route as it gives up some power.

    In some areas existing apparatus could be used (eg EFTA court for trade) but with regards to citizens rights no alternate apparatus yet exists.

    Unfortunately we can’t talk trade until we resolve citizens rights. It is a conundrum.

    EU are making a stand on ECJ regarding citizen rights as they know we could push for a new court on trade, possibly EFTA+ if they give ground now.

    IMHO we need to show our intent domestically. Show we are photocopying workers rights, etc. Show we are going to voluntarily accept EU law, etc. then go over Barnier’s head to the EU Council and state if that is still insufficient then we are done talking (timing wise probably after Dec round of talks).

    Barnier constantly refers to his strict mandate. If we show some evidence of goodwill on domestic legislation (Repeal Bill) then EU Council might tweak his mandate – Bloomberg, etc have mentioned that in their assessments.

    Sprinkle a few more IMOs in the above.

  49. The Other Howard: I want a UK Bill of Rights and Responsibilities as was originally proposed by the Conservatives, now in abeyance sadly.

    [Just a reminder that the Human Rights Act was initially introduced to ensure that UK courts could deal with breaches of Human Rights and the cases did not have to go to a court outside the UK. It made no changes to the actual Human Rights. It was mainly put in place to deal with a justifiable argument from the DM tendency that we could do Human Rights in the UK]

    Now, this getting rid of the HR Act is mainly the DM tendency wanting to change the law to make things more difficult for foreigners. Now forgive me, but I get extremely concerned when people want to tinker with Human Rights. They are never specific [a bit like Brexit] on what rights they want to add or take away, nor indeed on what responsibilities they want to add. It only speaks to me of old people reading their newspapers [DM and DEobviously] and getting angry or old boys in corners in pubs getting righteously angry about something which sure enough does need dealing with but which won’t be made 1 iota better by meddling with peoples rights.

    It always strikes me that the unintended consequences of an ‘angry agenda’ change to Human Rights legislation will be much worse than the original irritants.

  50. @ TW

    HMG has already made considerable concessions by stating ECJ rulings and future EU law will be considered in UK rulings – any lawyer would tell you that has meaning.

    I am a lawyer: at present the courts are entitled to take into account decisions of any court which operates under common law as persuasive authority, what has been offered means no more than that, if you read my previous post you will see what the difficulties are.

1 10 11 12 13 14