The ICM/Guardian poll today has topline figures of CON 41%(+1), LAB 41%(-1), LDEM 7%(-1). Fieldwork was Friday-Sunday, and changes are from ICM’s poll before the Labour conference. As with the polls at the weekend, there’s no significant change here. Theresa May’s conference speech obviously didn’t go as she would have hoped, but it doesn’t really appear to have changed levels of support: 17% of people told ICM her speech had improved their perception of her (mostly Tories who probably liked her anyway), 17% told ICM her speech had damaged their perceptions of her (mostly Labour supporters who probably didn’t like her anyway). Most said it made no difference.

ICM also asked about possible alternative leaders to Theresa May, underlining one of the problems the Conservatives have – in every named case (Johnson, Rudd, Hammond, Rees-Mogg, Patel and Green) people thought they would do worse than Theresa May would at the general election. The only person who the public thought would do better than May was a generic “someone quite young and able who is not currently in government”… which, of course, is a recipe for respondents to imagine an ideal candidate who may very well not exist, especially not among the select group of people with a reasonable chance of winning the leadership of the Conservative party.

Full tabs are here

799 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 41, LAB 41, LDEM 7”

1 9 10 11 12 13 16
  1. The barnier contradiction.

    when the UK leaves the EU it has the status of a third country

    what third country allows certain of its citizens to be subject to the laws of another entity when they contradict the laws of the host country?examples?.
    Lexis Europa. It is Imperialistic and Magnificent in concept. Almost Trumpian although even he would not dare. Wherever an american citizen lives his rights are guarranteed by the Supreme Court and any domestic host provision can be challenged if it contravenes american law.
    And we must accept this apparently if we want to maintain the privilege of the EU selling more to us than we do to them .Sounds fair

  2. @Colin

    Using Marx’s Das Capital as a framework for analysis and understanding of capitalist economics is not the same thing at all as believing in a Marxist-Leninist approach to running the economy. You can use the same analyticl approach and come to your own conclusions (which, in my case and probably yours, is that capitalism needs to be facilitated, but tempered by wise regulation and measures to enure that the wealth created is fairly shared).

  3. “what third country allows certain of its citizens to be subject to the laws of another entity when they contradict the laws of the host country?examples?.”

    It’s funny how Brexiters only pay attention when the EU is involved.

    Probably the best known example is the UK/US Extradition Treaty, 2003.

    This allows UK citizens, commiting acts in the UK that are not criminal offences under UK law to be extradited to the US with only ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they have committed an offence under US law and without the availability of legal aid to defend themselves.

    Is that sufficient?


    Interesting question in your last para-would you also ask it in respect of the Capitalist system?

    Do you have any explanation as to why the Chinese Communist Party-
    officially, organized on the basis of democratic centralism, a principle conceived by Russian Marxist theoretician Vladimir Lenin ,decided to adopt economic policies which involved the decollectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses.?

    Or do you have any thoughts on why Raul Castro -a Marxist dictator-decided to introduce private ownership & capitalist investment into the Cuban economy?

    Were these changes of heart because the leaders involved felt that Marxist solutions had been badly implemented in their countries -or were fundamentally incapable of generating wealth for their people. ?


    @” capitalism needs to be facilitated, but tempered by wise regulation and measures to enure that the wealth created is fairly shared”

    I agree wholeheartedly

  6. @S Thomas – the other example that immediately springs t mind is the Internaional Criminal Court, which prosecutes war crimes. This prosecutes only when national legal systems can’t or won’t prosecute for whatever reason, and again is something the UK has signed up to (and was, I gather, instrumental in setting up).

  7. “The introduction of controls on internal travel for one group of UK citizens is a major change. ”

    And no one is suggesting the introduction of controls on internal travel for one group of UK citizens. Trevor Warne’s proposal is not merely applied to NI residents but to all UK citizens.

    As someone who crosses the North Channel about 15 time a year for business reasons, but who hasn’t been to RoI in about five, I’m certainly negatively impacted more by a hard internal border. I don’t oppose it for Arlene’s reasons, but I do oppose it, and I don’t think it’s absurd for me to do so.

    Whether there is a hard border, and if so where, will impact many not all, many a little, and a handful a lot.

    I genuinely learnt something on the trade issue yesterday. Given the noise in negotiation, I always assumed that the balance of NI trade was such that NI was better in a customs relationship with RoI than GB and that it was politics that militated against this.

    I was genuinely surprised that the reverse is so clearly true. That if it comes to a forced choice (as one suspects it will) as regards a hard customs border between GB+NI/ RoI or GB/ NI+RoI, the trade balance favours the former with a hard border on land not in the sea.

    I have similarly assumed that a hard immigration border (which I am not convinced is necessary in the first place given that the CTA has worked fine for nigh on a century, but if it is) would cause more cumulative inconvenience on the land than in the sea, and that it was the (hardly trivial in this context) politics of sovereignty rather than the balance of convenience that worked against the latter.

    I am now wondering if that assumption is similarly wrong. It certainly would be for me personally.

  8. @hireton – this was my point. I can understand why RoI and the EU want an agreement before moving on. I’m just trying to understand how those that believe we should only make a deal in the context of the trade arrangements think this deal will be protected if it’s just a normal, reversible trade deal.

    So again, I’ll ask the Brexiters: if we can only agree to a border deal in the context of a trade deal, how will the possibility that either party walks away from such a deal be dealt with?

  9. [email protected] CROFT

    “Interesting question in your last para-would you also ask it in respect of the Capitalist system?”


    [I would be more positive if I could remember what my interesting question was….]

    “Or do you have any thoughts on why Raul Castro -a Marxist dictator-decided to introduce private ownership & capitalist investment into the Cuban economy?”

    Blimey no!!! I’ve never thunk about it even once.

  10. Trevor Warne,
    “a lot of which goes to the likes of SMogg and Dyson to keep fields empty.”
    It doesnt. You are a few rounds of reform behind the times. We changed the rules.

    “Companies raise new share capital on the Stock Market.

    The Stock market provides the vehicle for that exchange-and through its trading facility for setting a price.”

    But my xample was a 1p share now trading at £10, and I think such comparisons are likely reasonable. Thats 1p actually going into investment plus all the rest ever spent on purchasing those shares from their original owners NOT going into investment.

    “They would not be in business if their investments produced lower returns than their business liabilities”
    No again. A pension company does not promise a pension for eternity, calculates on something more like 30 years. Their business model is to tot up the capital plus any return, take off a percentage for themselves and then divide by 30. If the get their sums wrong they will go bust, but fundamentally they are not guaranteeing a particular return, and promised returns have fallen for 40 years. The collapse of the secure work pension is very telling of our economic collapse.

  11. Always useful to rediscover that the sort of people who comment on things they don’t understand on sites like this think that all economists are the people they read about in the papers saying high profile things they don’t like.

    Mostly, economists do low-profile stuff keeping track of how various of the complex facets of the economy is performing.

    You can declare loudly on internet forums that the economy isn’t important and people who study it are all idiots if you like; that is what you’re doing when you talk tripe about economists. It says a great deal more about the self-appointed Internet experts who do this than it does about the economy.

    What you are actually moaning about is people mistaking comment for fact. That *is* a fair criticism and it would have more validity from the usual suspects here if it were applied equally to the steady roar of drivel from people they find politically and socially palatable.

  12. PeterW: As someone who crosses the North Channel about 15 time a year for business reasons, but who hasn’t been to RoI in about five, I’m certainly negatively impacted more by a hard internal border.

    A genuine question.

    Do you fly on your visits to NI? And if so don’t you need to show a passport to get on the flight?

    I ask because it’s a while since I’ve made any internal UK flights, but when I did it was always necessary to show ID, which in the absence of a UK ID card (or forces ID) meant a passport. Has this changed?

  13. @peterw

    OK it’s internal travel.controls for one area of the UK. It is still a major change.

  14. “[T]he UK/US Extradition Treaty, 2003 … allows UK citizens, commiting acts in the UK that are not criminal offences under UK law to be extradited to the US with only ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they have committed an offence under US law”

    I’m no fan of this Treaty, but it’s not an exact parallel to what Barnier wants as I see it.

    It is the UK Courts that have formal jurisdiction to determine whether Treaty provisions apply. It is the UK courts that determine whether there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they have committed an offence under US law’. When the UK courts refuse extradition, the US Govt has no recourse to a US appellate jurisdiction.

    HMG is currently offering just that. That the UK Courts will determine whether there are EU Treaty rights at stake for EU citizens in the UK. That the UK courts will have jurisdiction in the application of the Treaty in the UK. Barnier wants the CJEU to do this and have that.

    The UK/ US extradition treaty would truly parallel the latter only if the US courts had jurisdiction over the operation of the extradition Treaty in the UK, and they do not.

  15. Marxism is very useful as a critique of the application of capital.

    Just as capitalists often spot issues with trying to apply Marxism.

    Both have issues when you try and apply them in practice.

    Wholesale Marxism, as in doing away with capital, is problematic. Not least because some people don’t really want to work for themselves but are happy being employed by others.

    But then again, wholesale capitalism sans any intervention is rather problematic too. Aside from having to bail it out when it collapses or else suffer a load of hardship, capital tends to keep concentrating to the detriment of others.

    So, we have a mixed economy where capitalism and socialism co-exist.

  16. Colin, there is no ‘marxist system’ and I am not failing in any way in not responding to your demand for ‘proof’ of anything. I was walking the dog tbh.

    I am attempting to show you that your narrow mindedness in conflating the writings of Marx with your appreciation of his ideas in action is unfortunate and muddleheaded.

    Take some time to read and reflect on his basic ideas and it is hard to deny his arguments about the relationships between capital, labour and power are at least thought provoking.

  17. Agreed, although that wouldn’t apply to the ICC.

    The point is that the question is repeatedly asked by Brexiters about whether ‘any other country agrees to X’ when it comes to legal ramifications of a deal on the ECJ, while at the same time these people call for imaginative solutions that have never been done before for other issues, like border controls.

    My point is that we can agree to any suitable legal oversight mechanisms if that is part of an acceptable overal deal. Just saying that this hasn’t been done before is logically meaningless, even though things like it, or very close to it, have been agreed in the past anyway. Just keeping it simple and say ‘I don’t like it’ is much more logical.


    I travel by both methods.

    There’s a photo id requirement to get on the flight, as there is anywhere these days.

    My recollection is that the ferry “recommends” some id, but not necessarily photo id, and this is not routinely checked if you’ve booked in advance in my experience. As I tend to get the ferry only for longer trips where I’m taking the car, I’d have my driving licence anyway, so I’ve never really worried about it.

    So the possession of the document isn’t the hassle as such.

    It’s the formal immigration requirement at the far end that would be the new bit, and in my experience of foreign travel at present that’s the bit that’s the pain and the bigger delay, not the photo id requirement at embarkation.

  19. Colin

    “If you can disabuse me of this impression with examples of Marxist economic successes in government , I would be happy to consider them.”

    Soviet Union could be seen as an example of the success of communism. The increase in industrial production was considerable as was the increase in living standards. There was a significant improvement in life expectancy despite the civil war and the multiple foreign interventions. The incidence of famine was also greatly reduced. Since the fall of communism there has been a huge drop in living standards and life expectancy.

    Cuba can also be said to be a success story despite the economic blockade. Compared with the rest of Central America it has better life expectancy and literacy rates, many health outcomes are better than in the US. It’s impossible to know how well Cuba would be doing without the economic blockade but it certainly couldn’t be doing worse than parts of Central America that are still controlled by US corporations.

    So far communism has only been tried in countries with severe problems. No affluent country has chosen communism, with the possible exception of Chile and we know what happened there. It’s not really possible to compare the two systems honestly without having two countries starting from the same position and given the same trading rules and the same levels of capital and indeed the same level of military threat. Obviously such a real life experiment is impossible.

    Taking all the factors together I would say it’s not proved that capitalism is intrinsically better than communism but the evidence points that way.

  20. PeterW:There’s a photo id requirement to get on the flight, as there is anywhere these days.

    So a driving licence is acceptable on flights? If so, that’s new. But presumably a non-driver still has to take a passport along?

    Of course, one solution post-brexit woud be for the UK to join Schengen…

  21. Education stats, USA v Cuba.

    ( I will stop now ;-)

  22. Mark

    What sort of dog do you have?

    We have a schnoodle [just a quarter poodle, the rest mini-schnauzer] and a border terrier [in case you’re intersted…]

  23. Paul, always interested in dogs.

    Ours is a cross between a french mastiff and a cane corso. Six years old and very slow and friendly, not like me at all.

  24. Alec

    so you equate specific war criminal legislation to a general right covering all fields. Good point.

    As to the us /uk extradition arrangement. Yes the uk applies it but does the US . No because congress and the senate wont ratify it for guess what reason ?
    I object to it in principle just as i object to the EWA.In its present form. Suppose Hungary were to make it an offence to harbour Muslims without documentation. Under the EWA a UK citizen could be extradicted for that offence and there is nothing we could do.

  25. @ PETERW – OK, I’ll change “absurd” to “wildly unreasonable”

    @ HIRETON – CAP. I like the SNP approach. SMogg is the ‘Duke of Buccleuch’ in Somerset (his wife is sole heir to Marchioness of Bristol). I’m not going to quote from gutter press but both the Independent and Express have run articles on SMogg that come to the same conclusion. Here’s the BBC’s info on rich being paid the most under the current arrangement:

    In terms of agriculture I start with the big picture that we import around 50% of our needs. I understand when you get to specific products and specific farmers the issue becomes complex. My crude illustration was simply to show we could do a much better job redistributing the money we get back from the EU – that is a matter for parliament of course and I’d agree not something CON would likely bother with. Unfort, you have to vote for the party that offers the best overall package in the same way one voted Remain or Leave as the best overall choice – I doubt anyone likes 100% of any package but if it’s say 60-40 Leave and 60-40 CON for me then I vote Leave and CON. Each person obviously weights up their own choice dependent upon what is important to them and who they think can deliver on their most important items.

    Regarding NI showing passports, I’m revising my use of the word absurd to wildly unreasonable. If we want to get from DD’s significant progress to Barnier’s sufficient progress then some compromises need to be made. May seems unwilling or unable to make those compromises. One way or another something will have to give by Dec – IMHO

  26. @trevorwarne

    Yes that’s why the payment per hectare is criticised but it’s not set aside as you seem to think. And the UK Government could have capped payments in England if it wanted.

  27. @ PETERW – If you travel to France on the Eurotunnel then you don’t show ID at the far end in either direction, you start your car up and drive straight off in both directions – no drama.

    The UK-France system requires both border checks being done on one side but the French rarely bother checking, UK side always take a minute or so to check the passports against the passengers.

    NI-GB should be a lot easier as it’s UK-UK, if you show your passport or driver’s license at one end then that should be all it takes and sounds like you do that now anyway!

    The other solution is Barnier shows a little flexibility and just allows UK to sort this internally. I can’t see anyone using the rEU-ROI-NI-GB route, or the reverse, for illegal immigration when you can simply fly rEU-GB direct on a travel visa.

    I agree that if it comes to hard borders then one inside Ireland makes more sense and appreciated your link showing the economic support of that. What I find disappointing is the chance that Foster’s stubbornness might at some point mean 1% of the population (half of NI) are forcing the other 99% into the default cliff-edge no deal. Other factors might mean no deal anyway and no deal doesn’t have to mean no deal but it would be nice to tick the easier boxes so we can move on.

  28. @S Thomas

    On the idea of how things are the best they’ve ever been.

    It’s not an uncommon meme, and of some interest.

    You can see the attraction of it on the face of it. Over time, some things do improve, notably technological progress.

    Straight away one can see potential issues here. Firstly in that accessing some of this progress is expensive therefore beyond many.

    And secondly in that some of it is secured by state action rather than via capital. Or state innconcert with capital.

    That said, some tech falls in price and becomes accessible to most. Even a cheap mobile phone these days does a whole lot more than they used to.

    But then some tech, e.g. Health tech, becomes available to most, but again, often through state action, either through the NHS, or in insurance-based systems, perhaps by the state acting to try and sort bulk buying of provision to keep costs down. In the states where this doesn’t happen, prices rocket.

    So yes, some things improve, thought some of it isn’t just down to capital. But then we have the fly in the ointment. Because it isn’t necessarily the case everything keeps improving, some things may worsen.

    So, someone on zero hours who’s seen their career route demised, struggling to hold a few part time jobs and pay ever increasing bills and rent, with little hope of buying a home and getting those big gains, and locked out from all but the cheaply available tech, may not feel things are all improving so wonderfully.

    Yes the phones do more for the money, but at the same time you’re choosing between food and heating and worrying about paying the rent, and if a family member needs help you don’t have much money and can’t take time off.

    These people might prefer the situation post-war, where you get the technological progress, and improved rights etc. along with improving living standards.

  29. TW: 1% of the population (half of NI) are forcing the other 99% into the default cliff-edge no deal.

    No. That would be a UK choice. Other alternatives are available.

    Viz: Remain in EU. Or remain in SM. Or remain in CU. Or agree to ‘special area’ status for NI. Or transition period on current terms + commitment to free trade deal. Or hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to cede NI to RoI and abide by the ‘will of the people’…

  30. @ DANNY -???

    Do you disagree with the contents of this link:

    I’ll cut this parts out:
    “The CAP benefits large landowners just for owning more land.” that is via pillar1 direct payments of 3.1bn
    [I’ll admit my error stating that was 3.4bn]

    Pillar2 is different and 709mn of that comes from EU, we already do our own part on 250mn

    The current regime will almost certainly have to change for the 2020-2026 budget period as we’ll hopefully no longer be paying net 10bn into the budget.

    I’m sure in 2022 when Corbyn and McDonnell come to power you’ll be there in the kangaroo courts parcelling out the land to the serfs or manning the guillotine to deal with the landed gentry but we’re not there yet!

  31. Mark

    Both big breeds then!

    I had wolfhounds many, many years ago [and Afghan hounds as well] and they were lovely.

    But I think the sort of nurturing instinct that we have is best suited to small breeds that one can pick up, sit on your lap and so on.

    Little breeds generally live a lot longer too, which is nice. Met two borders last week who seemed very fit and were 15 and 16.

  32. Paul, I think you misread, one dog at the moment, french mastiff / cane corso cross.
    We did have another biggie, a presse canario but she died young recently of liver cancer, common in her breed.

  33. I probably mis-wrote Mark – I meant two big breeds combining [versus two lttluns for our Daisie]

  34. Paul, oh, i think i misunderstood.

  35. @ SOMERJOHN – I’d like to return NI to Ireland in due course as you know – I’d use Hong Kong as a model personally (huge amount of detail in that hand-back and autonomous nature, security of HK that would take pages to explain). NB RoI, especially while inside EU, are much nicer folk than China!

    Special status or a bespoke trade deal that is Swiss++ is a stepping stone IMHO to ‘One Ireland’ but let’s not tell Arlene Foster that just yet!! Similarly the Smith Commission and Scottish Devolution Acts are stepping stones to the eventual situation for Scotland IMHO.

    My ‘dream’ scenario would be RoI and NI exist as ‘One Ireland’ – a nicer version of ‘One China’. GB ensure some security oversight, etc and NI operate as an autonomous region within Ireland. Ireland and Scotland then join EFTA+ from opposite directions, which would be where I’d ideally like us to end up. Wales should be given the democratic options to chose their own destiny as a devo-max region of UK, along with all English regions, or full independence and joining EFTA+. The English regions need to be devolved for it to work IMHO or at least we have an English parliament for English only matters.

    That’s a 10-15y plan IMHO but one I’m hoping for as the end result.

    EFTA+ = current EFTA but with more flexibility to conduct our own trade deals and lower payments into the EU. Full freedom of trade between members and sped up liberalisation of services. Externally sometimes countries might align as a block to get a deal, sometimes they might operate alone. We’d all be democracies in pursuit of fair trade, knowing bullies exist and working together when and where it makes sense. We’d need a fairly solid floor on common regulations and being cheap and lazy we should probably just shadow the EU in most areas but set the lead in services (EU can copy us if they like – no royalty fee required!)

    With regards to free movement of people, if the EFTA+ nations had similar wage levels then I’d just photocopy the EU free movement rules and use those in full. At the moment we don’t fully use the EU rules. Handbrakes, etc could be added and used if/when necessary (as DC asked for). No Schengen nonsense though – you show your passport when you move between countries. Personally I’d bring in ID cards but that’s not especially relevant.

    In terms of security, everyone ideally joins NATO – including Ireland and Scotland and as part of NATO we divvy up the sensible allocation of armed forces, base location, etc. I’m sure Nicola will put up a fight but if was Scottish, German or French planes based in Lossiemouth would that be OK? Trident might have to be moved to Cumbria. I’m sure PETER can advise on the best NATO options, not really my area of expertise.

    Maybe I should hand that little speech over to Boris so he can edit with some fancy words and pop it in his next press piece :)

  36. P.S. I’d also lobby the other EFTA+ members to allow Russia to join and push for Russia to join NATO as well. If we don’t get Russia inside the tent then China will get them inside their tent. Why stop in Eurasia, add in smaller Asian countries, African nations, etc.
    Of course long-term EFTA+ would ideally become irrelevant as everything folds into WTO but one step at a time!
    The key thing is to totally remove Empire building political motives from trade – that has been my major issue with the EU since Maastricht treaty and compounded by the E.Europe adventurism.

    Folks will see EFTA+ as an Empire2 attempt but it is the complete opposite. It should not be about economic might pushing an imperialist agenda – it should be about simple honest fair trade, which is the way to solve global poverty and improve humanity as a whole. Any country that tries to operate as a bully or exploit the trade agreements should be kicked out. Currencies should certainty not be cojoined unless very clear evidence of Optimum Currency Zone and a lengthy period of genuine economic convergence. Scotland would probably need there own currency in due course and Ireland would probably leave the Euro.

    All IMHO of course

  37. Back to polls and Sky poll tabs available here:

    No deal is better than a bad deal 74%
    Any deal is better than a no deal 26%

    Even looking at the cross breaks it appears the young understand that. The only cross breaks that stand out are London and Scotland down at 65% for no deal better than a bad deal.

    For those Remain still holding out for Corbyn then let’s see what he had to say today:
    “Listen, there isn’t going to be another referendum, so it’s a hypothetical question”

    Tidy :)

  38. @S Thomas – “Suppose Hungary were to make it an offence to harbour Muslims without documentation. Under the EWA a UK citizen could be extradicted for that offence and there is nothing we could do.”

    I’m afraid that’s complete cobblers.

    If Hungary did that, the ECJ would rule it unlawful.

    I actually find it rather amusing that you’ve made a point to back up your case which actually demonstrates just how good being in the EU and under the ECJ can be for citizens.

  39. @Trevor Warne:
    “No deal is better than a bad deal 74%
    Any deal is better than a no deal 26%”

    So 26% of people believe that if Theresa May negotiates that we’ll sacrifice all first born children in the UK in exchange for not allowing the ECJ jurisdiction after March 2019 (and, let’s be honest, there’s a high likelihood she’s offered that by now) we should still accept that deal rather than turning it down?

    (Or, in other words: this is a site about polling and we should all be able to spot a badly worded poll. This is a badly worded poll.)l

  40. @Paul Croft & @Markw – we had a couple of multimix mongrels, loved them to bits, had them each for nearly 20 years. One died a couple of years before the other, and we really struggled watching the other one deal with the loss. Although both lived very active and full lives and died peacefully, it took me months to get over losing them. I should have got a new pup straight away, but haven’t yet been able to bring myself to get another dog. I will one day though.

  41. @TW

    My thinking on Scotland, NI and devolution within rUK is pretty similar to yours. The big difference between us is over EU / Efta. I don’t share your misgivings about an ultimately federal Europe. We (they?) just have to make sure its governance is fully democratic, properly designed, structured and implemented, and with full safeguards for all its nations and regions. A USA v.2 with all the defects corrected.

  42. Alec

    I’m sure that when the time’s right you will.

    Doing it properly is an enormous commitment of course.

    [And an enormous joy as well.]

  43. trevor warne,
    “The CAP benefits large landowners just for owning more land”
    I dont believe I disagreed with this earlier. It is basically a flat rate per acre, so obviously if you have more acres you get more, and from one perspective this is entirely fair. The page you post seems to describe the scheme as it has been implemented by the Uk, but there were options in how the Uk could have chosen to apply it, and it could have imposed a cap on maximum payments to individual recipients. We chose not to.

    “I’m sure in 2022 when Corbyn and McDonnell come to power you’ll be there in the kangaroo courts parcelling out the land to the serfs”

    95% of the country is undeveloped, so yes, I would be parcelling out another 0.5% but for housebuilding, not so that everyone can become peasant farmers. I fancy that even some of the current landowners would be quite chuffed to be allowed to built a few homes dotted about on their holdings. I dont mind them making something from it, so long as the job gets done.

  44. Trevor Warne,
    “No deal is better than a bad deal 74%”

    Its a stupid slogan, because it doesnt explain what constitutes a bad deal, it is left to the judgement of the respondent. A leaver might consider keeping any links with the EU is a bad deal, whereas a remainer might consider losing any links with the EU is a bad deal. A deal one lot might think bad, the other would think good, yet both can agree they dont like a bad one.

    Personally, I would regard ‘no deal’ to include staying exactly as we are as an EU member. ‘No deal’, obviously. And that would be better than a bad deal like leaving.

  45. @smileyben

    Also badly worded polls undertaken by an organisation which isn’t a member of the BPC.

  46. Alec: it took me months to get over losing them.

    We have a 13 year old rescue dog – a mix of border collie and something broad-headed and big-footed like a newfoundland. He’s been, and still is, a wonderful dog, but now struggles with a heart murmur, dodgy back legs and the weight of a large lipoma hanging from his chest (our vet says it could come off, but general anaesthetic risky in his condition). Still enjoys life and his twice-yearly trips to Spain, but the end can’t be far off. So I understand your trauma – it’s not too strong a word – and already feel what’s coming.

  47. @hireton, @danny – exactly.

    There was a time when UKPR was a place where everyone was nerdy about polls and interested in the question of which were good ones, rather than good for their political point of view. Sadly no more…

  48. IMF

    the IMf fired a warning shot across the bows of the EU today. Mindful of the prospect of 1.7 million jobs being lost across the EU if no trade deal is reached with the UK she said that “people” would not understand why a deal had not been reached. In a thinly veiled warning to EU negotiators she implied that they ought to start talking to the UK about trade.
    The IMF is currently at loggerheads with Germany about its refusal to allow the EU to wipe off the debts of stricken Greece which is suffering catastrophic consequences of EU and german intransience

  49. Alec

    i think you are getting carried away. I do not think that the ECJ has the power to strike down a criminal statute of a member state unless you can point to it.And if it does yet another reason to leave.
    You might be getting confused with the ECHR. it is a common mistake so do not feel bad about it.Still, to use another example: suppose Germany wanted to extradite a Brtish subject for being rude to a turkish President or denying the Holocaust. That couldn’t possibly happen could it?
    The EAW should at the very least be restricted to:

    1. offences which carry at least 5 years Imprisonment in the country seeking the extradition;
    2. the offence must be the same as or of the same or similar type to a criminal offence in the state where the national is domiciled.

1 9 10 11 12 13 16