There are two polls on holding a second referendum in today’s papers.

YouGov in the Times found 36% of people in favour of a second referendum once Brexit negotiations are complete, 43% of people were opposed, 21% said don’t know. This is slightly up on last year – YouGov found 33% support in December and 32% in October. Full tabs are here.

The other poll was by ComRes in the Mirror. 43% of people said they would like a second referendum, 51% would not, 6% said don’t know. The don’t knows are lower, but the proportions of support and opposition to a second referendum are similar.

ComRes also asked how people would vote in a second referendum – excluding don’t knows, 55% of people said REMAIN, 45% LEAVE. The Mirror made a big fuss about this, but it requires some caution. The ComRes tables are here and suggest the data was only weighted by age, gender and region – as opposed to most polls, which are also weighted to ensure they are representative by things like past vote, 2016 referendum vote, education, class and so on. Now, there is a place for flash polls like this in getting a quick gauge of the public’s opinion on a breaking news story, but whether they are suitable for something as delicate as voting intention is a different question.

When it comes to voting intention – whether it be for an election or a referendum – the last few elections have taught us that getting the sample right and getting turnout right are crucial. For Brexit, that means ensuring the sample is right on things that like education, social class (where the ComRes poll appears to be 70% ABC1!) – and ensuring the sample has the right sort of balance of people who voted Remain and Leave last time. I would apply some caution towards any poll that did not.

I did a longer piece looking at polling on support for Brexit last month, here. Typically polls asking about how people would vote in a second referendum (which BMG and Survation ask regularly, Opinium and YouGov on occassion) have shown smaller Remain leads of between 1 and 4 points.


125 Responses to “Polling on a second referendum”

1 2 3
  1. OLDNAT @ BZ

    Thanks for the Court link. The Advocate General’s response does indeed seem irrelevant.

  2. Robin

    Revocation of A50

    Your reference is just to the UK’s Supreme Court case.

    The ECJ might take a similar view – or a different one, in the case of revocation.

    They might, for example, say that the UK could unilaterally revoke A50, in the same way that it could table it – “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – but clarify that those requirements required a decision by the Queen in Parliament, and not just an Executive one.

    Who knows?

  3. Come to think of it –

    The ECJ might also rule that since the decision to table A50 wasn’t taken by “the Queen in Parliament”, the tabling of it was null and void! :-)

  4. And a further thought –

    The ECJ could also take a different view to the Supreme Court of the UK on the necessity of Legislative Consent Motions. They could rule that they were an essential part of the UK’s constitutional requirements.

    That would be fun!

  5. A50

    Dream on fellas!

    The ECJ will decide that A50 cannot be revoked unilaterally. It cannot decide otherwise. if it did think what would happen? Any state with a greivance can invoke A50 as a threat knowing that it could withdraw at the last minute having tied up the EU machinery for up to 2 years. it is a recipe for chaos and the EU knows it.It could not function.

    So if it helps you sleep at night dream on about A50 being revocable but a rude awakening is coming.

  6. WB: I wish the narrative was about the high ideals of a European Project which espouses human rights, equality, the rule of law and other democratic values as being the reasons for embracing European Union.

    Lots of turgid dross has flowed under the bridge since you posted this.

    For what it’s worth, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Those are exactly my sentiments, but we have reached the point in the UK when any expression of noble sentiments like these is met with disdainful scorn. The well has been poisoned by 40 years of negative media manipulation, and sadly the critical faculties of much of the population have been attenuated (or were never developed) to the point where they are unaware of this manipulation.

    So one tends to argue not on the basis of high principle, but of base economics.

  7. S Thomas

    I thought you were supposed to be a senior lawyer in England?

    Surely you have seen cases in which the courts have struggled to interpret inadequate legislation, but need to give a definitive answer?

    It could also be that you believe that British courts are immune from political bias when making decisions, but that the EU courts must be politically directed.

    Who knows?

  8. SOMERJOHN

    Agreed. It’s all been dismissed under a barrage of xenophobic garbage.

  9. @GUYMONDE

    Sorry I may not have made it clear. I agree that what thatcher did was not fiscally conservative although she claimed to be a fiscal conservative hence the reason I said it was weird. No one in the fiscally conservative circles dissented.

    I completely agree with the analysis. essentially we substituted wage growth for asset growth by debt accumulation. it is why even now house prices beat wage rises in much of the hotspots across the UK.

  10. @OLDNAT
    “They might, for example, say that the UK could unilaterally revoke A50, in the same way that it could table it – “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – but clarify that those requirements required a decision by the Queen in Parliament, and not just an Executive one.”

    There’s not the remotest chance it could find jurisdiction to do that. Its jurisdiction extends only to the Treaties. It can rule on whether the action of a member state is compliant with the Treaties. It can even rule on whether the constitution of a member state is compliant with the Treaties. But it has no power at all to rule on what the constitution of a member state says. Even the wildest dreams of the wildest federalist have never suggested giving it that power.

    Since Article 50 places no condition on a member state other than to act “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” there is nothing the ECJ can gain traction on.

    In this context, only the ECJ can rule whether the UK can or cannot revoke Article 50 uniltarally provided it acts “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” but only the UKSC can rule on what those requirements are.

  11. @ON
    “Actually, you can cast a vote for a party like UKIP that wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament. If it came into power in a sovereign UK Parliament and implemented that policy that would “get Sturgeon out” of the office of FM (and anybody else as well).
    So you have much more power over the Scottish FM than a Greek voter (or yourself) has over the German Chancellor.”

    Good point.

    And a good illustration of why the language about ceding sovereignty that surrounds the EU debate has never really been apposite in my view. Partial sovereignty is as nonsensical as partial virginity.

  12. oldnat

    surely you mean pre-eminent:-)

  13. >Germany and Greece.

    I’ll start with this line because I think it betrays the problem I have with people view of the EU Europe and indeed a misunderstanding of the greek debt

    >Of course Germany wanted Greece to stay in EU and Euro – that is how they get their money back! That is the >whole point. Keeping Greece in the Euro was not mercy it was brutal punishment – without the ability to devalue or >default they had to internally devalue via massive spending cuts, wage cuts, pension cuts, hike taxes, etc. and enter >a decade long depression costing them over 25% of their GDP! Austerity of a magnitude far beyond Osborne. This >is why people make the comparison of Troika’s 3 Greek bail out packages to the Treaty of Versailles.

    If you understood the Greek debt crisis. You’ll find there are no good guys. The greek government with help of an number of banks most famously Goldman Sachs hid the Greeks true economic position. In the meantime banks were lending recklessly without taking account of risk so that by the time 2008 came around most if not all the Banks were not viable and had too little capital. By the time we get to 2010 the government revises the deficit figure from 6% to 15.7%. The banks immediately responded by not lending them any money. Literally overnight the deficit tripled not for just that year but for previous years too.

    >The Greeks did not invade Berlin, they borrowed too much money with no way to pay it back – those that lent them >the money should bear some of the burden of that.

    The Greek Government behaved fraudulently, You cannot describe it as a simple borrowing of too much money. I am sorry if you pay your mortgage and then lose your job I have sympathy for you if you can’t pay your bill but if you lie about how much you earn and then get a huge mortgage and then decide you can pay that is fraud plain and simple. This was corruption on a Mugabe scale. In the heart of europe. This is not Ireland or Spain or even Portugal. This is on another level. To lie about your deficit and basically near triple it just leave me aghast and indeed is why the Greek government is treated the way it is

    >As someone who wants their student loan debt expunged your hypocrisy is astounding!

    I am going to ignore this comment. It is stupid and I think you could do better by actually understanding the history of the issues.

    >Greece still have no realistic way to ever pay the debt back. Part of the Troika package required them to hike taxes, >making them even less competitive than they already were and with 50% youth unemployment anyone of any talent >(and linguistic skills) is leaving the country – again harming their future prosperity.
    >Those countries that wanted to allow Greece to leave Euro and possibly also EU were offering mercy – mercy that >Germany did not permit.

    Greece had several options:
    They could have left the EZ and that would have been an automatic default but they chose not to do that. The approach that Tsipras and Varoufakis tried was essentially emotional blackmail on germany and essentially singling out Germany however I’ll include this link to allow you to understand this was not a German thing.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11734681/The-countries-happy-to-see-Greece-leave-the-eurozone.html

    The reason I believe they went for this strategy was because the alternative was to default and to return to the drachma and they would have had to perform the same reforms anyway.
    As people in the UK have discovered devaluation when you are in an interconnected economy and where you have a balance of payments problems means that you end up with a pay cut. Indeed the UK devaluation was some 13% I believe but that put a squeeze on food and other items. Soem of my moutain bike parts are now 30% higher.

    Defaulting out of the EZ would have meant not a 20% cut in wages but something closer to 75%. Needless to say there would have been having to print money to pay their bills. Correctly Tsipras realised that there was no way out and default and devaluation was going to be a disaster hence he did the referendum. Whereby people said no to austerity but did not ant to leave the EZ.

    >As you can tell I get very emotional about the Greek issue and the way the Troika treated them so I’m signing off for >the night now.

    My view of debt is that it needs to be used to generate wealth in this case as with many other cases it has been misallocated to a level that is unprecedented. For example I believe the student loans are a misallocation investment indeed the risk is held entirely by the student and not the person that will generating wealth from that student.

    In the case of Greece I believe that they need to restructure their economy and their institutions. Simply put this is not a matter of debt relief it is actually a matter of trust. As you see from the comments of many of the leaders.

    Greece needs to regain the trust of it fellow EU member and the money markets since at some point they will have to return to them.

    As to what the EU has done wrong:

    They should have put in a debt relief to allow the debt to be fixed at 100% of GDP.
    They should not taken over the banks loans, although in fairness only Iceland defaulted and they were in a much better position than anyone else
    The EU should have taken over the institutions since they were not fit for purpose if you are paying for it you better own it.
    There should have been a program of investment.
    Someone from Goldman Sachs should have been in jail for conspiracy to defraud.
    I get emotional of the fact that as I believe DANNY said we have trade labour right and wage earning for asset inflation fuelled by debt accumulation Greece our Housing problems are a logical conclusion of that approach it mean that it could easily lead to fraudulent behaviour as it is a unseen and victimless crime to the people whom are doing it but actually it really does destroy living standard and opportunity. Money creation needs to be taken out of speculators hand and be better controlled.

    As I pointed out above what always gets me is fiscal conservatives are the ones that want deregulation that leads to this behaviour and yet blame poor people when they act the same it is ironic that there is a story of a woman who claimed the wrong benefit and thus was convicted of fraud but was entitled to more benefits than she fraudulently got yet we have a system which essentially rewards people who have destroyed people’s value, jobs

    As some of you know I actually find people’s views that are different to mine very interesting. I am not triggered by other people’s views and I believe whilst I do not agree with some it is important to have a rational debate I am sorry that I have made TREVOR angry but I feel he has terribly misjudged what actually happened in the greek crisis and the limits of what Greece and the EZ were able to do

    What I found to be hypocritical is that TREVOR has argued for debt relief for Greece but votes LEAVE in part because of money going to other europeans countries for their development. Indeed my views on debt relief and essentially helicopter money is that we would have been better to bail out the people than banks.

    This a long not so sorry if is seem like a rant but I do not accpet the charge of a hypocrit and especially from someone whom is deficient of the facts.

  14. PTRP

    Thanks for the interesting response

  15. When Art 50 was triggered M Barnier and others produced a resolution for the European Parliament which included this:

    “Whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27 so it cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the current terms of the United Kingdom’s membership;”

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20170329RES69090/20170329RES69090.pdf

  16. the final countdown

    Why are posters wasting their time contemplating a eCJ ruling on A50?There is no time nor appetite for a second referendum which i suppose is its only relevance.

    The uK will leave the EU on March 29th 2019 and the only question is on what trade terms:

    1. As the eU has offered as a very minimum the canadian deal it is highly unlikely that we leave on WTO terms;
    2. The canadian deal is undoubtedly not as good as our current trade deal but it honours the referendum result and would be acceptable even in its basic form IMHO to the British people;
    3.Because of our current conformity with the EU regulations the development envisaged in the CETA is already in existence and could form part of the deal essentially allowing free trade in all sectors. This is Canada Plus.Achievable with very little effort one would have thought by using the ceta terms and adopting them The EU and Canada already have an arbitration procedure agreed.Why do we not join this ?
    4. Canada Plus Plus would include ffinancial and services. Barnier says impossible but Germany says possible if the Uk pays. TM says no pay. but wants it.But as i have said it may be a close run thing whether the city wants passporting if the cost is eU regulatory compliance at a time of US competition and it may think that the greater threat to it comes from across the atlantic rather than from brexit.This will be one to watch.

    5. It does not seem fantastic to enter transition with a canada plus deal while negotiating for a plus plus if London finance still wants it. It they are will ing to lose passporting in return for freedom to compete with the US then our hand is stronger still.

    perhaps we ought to look at the canadian deal in more detail and see how we can move to canada plus rather than waste our time on A50 and “if only” fantasies

  17. s thomas

    “Why are posters wasting their time”

    lol.

  18. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    Great post on Greece but I wonder about how tied governments’ (and EU) hands really are sometimes when they say there’s nothing better they can do. Where there’s a will there’s a way, and Germany had first hand experience of this ater the war at the London conference where half their debts were forgiven (including Germany’s debts to Greece which had been lent under the duress of occupation). The reason for this debt relief was simply that “Germany could never repay it” nothing more. Repayment of the remaining debts were then linked to German exports which led directly to the ‘German post-war miracle’.
    I only mention all this to point out that imaginative and positive solutions can be found.
    As for fraud, well it was agreed later that were Germany to ever reunite they should repay their debts in full, but in 1989, kn unification it was ‘decided’, without any public discussion to just forget all that. Now that’s fraud and it goes up show that there’s debt and there’s debt and that Greek debt is real, particularly when it’s owed to German banks.
    I think the Greek should have been bailed out and the ECB should have bailed out and taken over) the insolvent German banks. That would have been more honest since the Greek ‘rescue’ is really a bank rescue in wolfs clothing.
    Just my view, but to be clear I do agree with much of what you wrote.

  19. Somerjohn

    “Lots of turgid dross has flowed under the bridge since you posted this”

    We can agree on that, I’ve just been reading some. I find your arrogant dismissal of half the UK population particularly amusing. It must mean you think yourself superior in some way.

  20. Total UK population 65.64 million
    Number who voted leave 17,410,742
    number who voted remain 16,141,241

  21. NeilJ

    Fair comment then I will say 17410,742 voters then. Happy now?

  22. As ever in this debate, there seems to be a good deal of both teams trying to play on different sides when it suits them. Remainers suggest we could revoke A50, by implication without penalty, while insisting that the EU’s interest l!e in making sure any leaving deal is offputting for others considering leaving, while leavers claim that we can get an excellent leaving deal while claiming that the EU won’t permit a simply revokation of A50 for fear that this becomes a bargaining tool for others in the future.

    I posted way back that revoking A50 would, in my view, be possible, but that my reading of the legislation is that as the clock is ticking on a 2 year leaving timetable, revokation by the UK would have to be accompanied by unanimous agreement of the EU27. I believe @S Thomas has a point, in thaat if the UK is given a seamless path to remain, then others will look at A50 as a future negotiating tool. The link to Barnier’s resolution provided by @Colin suggests that the EU see this also.

    The ECJ may rule dfferently, and I don’t accept @S Thomas’ interpretation that they will make a political judgement – the court is better than that – but the treaty seems fairly clear. If we revoke, I would expect some conditions on being accepted back in.

    Likewise, leavers can’t use the EU self interest element on A50 but then claim we can get a CETA+++ deal that suits the city and gives us good access in services etc. Sauce for the goose. Whatever happens next, the EU will be looking to discourage other potential leavers and maintain the benefits of the SM. We _will_ get a deal that is worse than what we currently have, and we really can’t expect the EU to bend over backwards to help UK’s important sectors. They will be more keen to establish barriers and encourage migration of services into the EU27.

    This is part of the dynamic affecting both elements under discussion, and it doesn’t change according to which side you are on.

  23. S THOMAS

    “It does not seem fantastic to enter transition with a canada plus deal while negotiating for a plus plus if London finance still wants it. It they are will ing to lose passporting in return for freedom to compete with the US then our hand is stronger still.”

    It may not seem fantastic to you but it does to me. I won’t tell you why just yet.

  24. Alec

    Nice to agree with a post of yours.

    Of course I would go on to say that even though leaving on WTO terms (which I still think most likely) would be a worse trading relationship with the EU, in the medium to long term we will be better off both economically and in so many other ways. You of course would not agree, and there is the difference between those who want to leave and those who don’t.

  25. TOH

    @”turgid dross”.

    Somerjohn is an accomplished exponent of the genre.

    ……….and just ordinary dross too. :-)

  26. ALEC

    slight correction – it was me.

  27. articulate dross is much better imo

  28. @TOH – I’ve always felt your argument about leaving on WTO terms remains entirely logical, and I can readily accept people holding that point of view, even if I may doubt the practicalities.

    I don’t pretend to really understand the implications of such a move, other than to note that for decades countries around the world have sought to improve on WTO terms, which suggests to me that reverting to this set of rules in terms of how we trade with the world’s largest trading block isn’t a very good idea.

    My biggest concern would be the extent of the short term damage to the economy that this would bring. This is something else that I also think we agree on, although our views on the depth and extent of the disruption may differ.

    Everything I’ve seen suggests that reverting to WTO would be something of a disaster for most of the UK economic sectors, and it would precipitate significant disruption, fall in investment and migration into the EU. The permanent loss of GDP would appear to be very substantial, and in the medium term virtually all the forecasters predict a huge loss of GDP. From this, we can extrapolate some very significant impacts of the public sector.

    Apart from belief in a better future, there doesn’t seem to be any credible explanation of the mechanisms by which WTO terms lead to a brighter future, and it’s this lack of evidence that I’m basing my view on.

  29. “Turgid Dross” sounds like one of those vaguely foreign villains that pop up now and again in the Bond movies.

  30. JIM JAM

    :-)

    That’s what most of us post isn’t it?

  31. ALEC

    You’re thinking of Turgid Van Dross the estranged brother of Luther, the deceased American singer .

    Turgid couldn’t sing-its what made him so unhappy, & drove him to International Crime & Global Terrorism.

  32. mea culpa Colin

  33. Turgid Dross would make a great name for virtually any contemporary band.

    As to this very boutique, brief dross is best – you hardly feel the effect then.

  34. :)

  35. Isn’t brief dross the fluff that you find in your navel?

  36. DAVID COLBY

    >Great post on Greece but I wonder about how tied governments’ (and EU) hands really are sometimes when they >say there’s nothing better they can do. Where there’s a will there’s a way, and Germany had first hand experience of >this after the war at the London conference where half their debts were forgiven (including Germany’s debts to >Greece which had been lent under the duress of occupation). The reason for this debt relief was simply that >“Germany could never repay it” nothing more. Repayment of the remaining debts were then linked to German >exports which led directly to the ‘German post-war miracle’.
    >I only mention all this to point out that imaginative and positive solutions can be found.

    In fairness I did not say there was nothing they can do. Indeed I pointed out what I would do however this is a political association and the its operation is more complex. The issues are more political

    I should have pointed to this to show the many thing that could be done and indeed pointing out the difference between the debt relief of today and that of yesteryear

    http://jubileedebt.org.uk/reports-briefings/briefing/europe-cancelled-germanys-debt-1953

    And here is the argument of debt relief as seen from a spanish perspective just to give you the lie as to how complex the matter is

    https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-spanish-government-opposes-debt-relief-for-greece/

    What is interesting is the Many of the bond holder whos bond were issued in EZ markets have taken a haircut since the laws allow it. Those bonds under UK laws do not have a hair cut applied. Indeed the bondholder are being paid in full. Hence again part of my interesting take of the duplicity of the UK. our unique sell position is that the law guarantees the payment of bondholders and even teh greek Bondholder gained a concession that their new debt which was revalued much greater than that which they could get on the market now is reissued under UK rules.

    >As for fraud, well it was agreed later that were Germany to ever reunite they should repay their debts in full, but in >1989, kn unification it was ‘decided’, without any public discussion to just forget all that. Now that’s fraud and it goes >up show that there’s debt and there’s debt and that Greek debt is real, particularly when it’s owed to German banks.
    >I think the Greek should have been bailed out and the ECB should have bailed out and taken over) the insolvent >German banks. That would have been more honest since the Greek ‘rescue’ is really a bank rescue in wolfs >clothing.

    I do not believe it was forgotten. It was cancelled in return for est germany taking onRast Germany’s debts. Again not to harp on at this point but it is more than German banks that have the debt indeed there are a range of issues that pertain to the debt. As I said it would firstly require a change in UK law that would allow bond holder who had their issuance hear to take a hair cut. I am not sure that TREVOR WARNE would want the city to suffer such a loss of competitive edge as an example.

    >Just my view, but to be clear I do agree with much of what you wrote.

    The Greek crisis is very complex as I said right at the beginning there are no good guys. The reason why Bondholders go to UK markets is that they are protected from mistakes and that means that even defaulting countries may not get debt relief even if many of the players agree. Argentina spring to mind.

    My purposes was not to explore debt relief as point. It was to explore how we misunderstand the EU, it operation and its influences. For example there is a left/right dynamic about the debt relief. For example across the EZ left wing parties are in favour and right wing parties are seemingly opposed although an honorable mention to the FDP whom are also in favour of default/debt relief combination. Debt relief also has the complexity of markets and market protections. Part of the reason that EZ wants trading centred in the EZ area is that in cases like this UK and US law protects bondholder from hair cuts like those holding EZ issuance bonds have had to take. The bond holders have the UK and US government firmly behind them which is ironic TREVOR WARNE lack of understanding of the reason for the UK competitive edge in terms of UK finance is the very thing that makes debt relief hard. In truth their hands are tied.

    It is why Argentina even though they defaulted are still in purgatory because bonds issued in the US cannot get a haircut and cannot be cancelled.

    I have been fortunate to actually meet and dine with many people involved in finance. They point to the fact that the reason that much of debt relief for places like africa in the 90s could occur was because the debt was governmental and not market based. Essentially the government can make the rules up as they go along. For greece to get debt relief the bond holder have to forgive them their debt. Essentially all that has happened so far is that the EZ the ECB and the IMF have taken on being guarantors of the debt. The bond holders have to take a haircut and they have british law to protect them from doing so. If you want to reduce the debt you will have to change UK law. If you want to relieve the debt basically you have to define who takes the hit.

    What is often expected is that the other EZ countries take the hit for Greece. Indeed it is one of the reasons that the EZ took the UK to court over EZ trading issues basically they have no control over the issuance of debt. Hence why in some circles UK leaving the EU is a good thing.

    We need to be careful what we wish for and have a better understand of what is going on. Basically the question is would you pay for the Greek debt? It is clear the answer from the British government is no. from eurosceptics is no and the reason they give is that they did not create the debt. That to me is the hypocrisy of the situation. The UK unique selling proposition in finance is that you can kill the debt.

  37. @PTRP

    Fascinating stuff on Greek debt. Thanks for the insight.

    I think your most telling point comes at the end, in highlighting the inconsistency of those who condemn the EU ‘punishment’ (there’s that favourite word again!) of Greece by insisting on reform as the price of continued support, while at the same time rejecting any suggestion that the UK might share in the cost of relieving debt which the City was instrumental in arranging. (I’m assuming the City’s leading role, since we are constantly told how essential the UK is to EU debt markets,)

    Personally, now the Schäuble roadbock has gone and a more amenable German government is in prospect, I’d hope to see a ‘cash for progress’ programme, whereby the ECB would buy and cancel tranches of Greek debt whenever agreed reform goals are successfully achieved. But I’m no financier and accept this may be simplistic, as well as possibly rewarding opportunistic holders of Greek debt.

  38. too much TLDR dross which even if not dross is defo TLDR.

  39. @COLIN

    The issue of Financial services is one which I believe no one really understands the deep implication of what it means. The EZ bond rules for example are vastly different from that of the UK ands the US. I do not see that EU would want to expose themselves to such a situation as they have ahd with the likes of greece as I have said previously in posts.

    Indeed the problem with Financial services and a single market in such is that compliance especially when things break down. part of the problem of greece’s bailout is that where thing are issued in the EZ they fall under a set of rules which actually makes things like debt relief easier. it was part of the ECJ judgement that EU countries should be treated the same even if they have different rules. The UK advantage in Financial services is based on the protection of bondholder over that of protection against default.

    it means that EZ issuance of bonds have very different protections compared with that of UK issuance as an example With the UK leaving this make life easier for the EZ. Argentina faces the same problem with bond issued on US markets. As I say it is ironic since the treatment of greece is often used by eurosceptics as an added reason for the negativity on the EU. When actually the EZ is tied because of UK law in terms of dealing with the debt relief for example.

    In simple terms the EZ would prefer to have higher cost yet better control of it debt issuance indeed the euro’s rules and approach basically demands it. it was a weakness of the EZ in that it had no control of the debt issuance from centre outside it legal remit. hence whilst EZ area bondholder could have a hair cut. UK bond issuance holders cannot. So debt relief is limited.

    The point is often lost in haze of euroscepticism and europhiles alike and whilst I think it is not central to the debate it is often not well understood and is subject to a hue amount of miscommentary and emotion

  40. @Sam “Honesty is the best policy https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/13/rebel-labour-mp-calls-on-party-to-make-game-changing-brexit-move?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Wes Streeting is under the delusion that Parliament is negotiating the future relationship. It is not. That’s the Queen’s prerogative. Parliament can say yes or no to a newly negotiated treaty but cannot impose SM or CU on the Government’s negotiations short of a Vote of Confidence, almost certainly followed by a GE and then a new Government that wanted to agree that with the EU (and that assumes the EU would go along with that).

    Not to worry though, Jeremy will ensure Brexit goes ahead. He can’t have any of those pesky EU bureaucrats and rules getting in the way of his grand vision.

  41. @JIM JAM

    Apologies for the TLDR. I think that in many respect that it is the TLDR ones are the most important. We want simple answers to complex questions and in truth there is no simple answers

    My point was simply that we misunderstand complexities of the EU. we see it as Germany and its satellites. it informs how we behave and interact with the EU.

    I also point to the fact that because of our lack of understanding leading to a miscommentary of the issues. the Greek debt issue has it origins in the very thing that many leave campaigners want to protect. I find it ironic

    I was accused of hypocrisy in my view when essentially describing EU actions in 3 cases. The point was that the the person was ignorant of the issue involved it is easy to cast aspersions on others when there is not a clear understanding. I am sorry that it was not seen as helpful.

  42. @SOMERJOHN

    debt and debt relief is a really interesting to me. I have managed and been on executive boards of a couple of start ups. it is amazing how the rules favour the VCs and the bondholders. debt that was issued in the UK is protected under UK law. So essentially these people will get paid no matter what essentially we are asking other to pay for greek debt it does not get cancelled. The bondholder of UK issanced debt will get paid the full amount with interest.

    What we are asking is EZ to pay the Bondholders as I said above EZ issuance bond have undergone a hair cut of 50% which actually is a much better deal than 90% they would have got on the open market. It points to why EZ countries went to the ECJ to stop UK issuance of euro denominated debt. They just don’t want ot be burned in the future.

    A deal on financial services will be interesting and the level of compliance may be the thing that changes the deal. As one person I know in VC circles said to me “if I was the EU I would do what they are doing sharpish, if they look across the water at what is happening to Argentina they screwed if they don’t” In many ways it is a matter of survival. UK law is basically sticking two fingers at greek debt relief. hence my point is that it is difficult to see a way out and there are no good guys.

    The UK need to keep it preeminent position in financial markets so changing the law is impossible.

    You are asking poor countries (Slovakia Estonia Lativa and the like to pay bondholders the full value of Greek debt issued in the UK. Just think of the idea of may announcing something similar in parliament……

    lastly the irony of juxtaposition of the two issues seen as an assualt on the UK is to my mind ironic.

    Yet I am a hypocrite.

  43. SEACHANGE

    “Honesty is the best policy” is a reference to the Labour position of adopting all EU regulation during a transition period while leaving unclear what would follow that. We know Corbyn wants the UK out of the EU. “Brexit for jobs” is more tosh along the lines of “Brexit means Brexit”.

    Thus Labour and Cons mirror each other.

  44. “NeilJ

    Fair comment then I will say 17410,742 voters then. Happy now?”
    @The Other Howard January 13th, 2018 at 9:19 am

    Well why not say 100*(17,410,742/65,640,000) = 26.52% ?

    Or to put it into words, of the 65 million people living in the UK, the referendum resulted in 27% of them voting to leave the EU, but it didn’t ask what this meant. This pointless exercise now means no one actually knows what is going on.

    Now if you had said that it would have been a fairer description of silly mess we are now in.

    You could have also added, for extra clarity, that 3 million of them, many of whom permanently live here, were denied a say. But that’s democracy for you.

  45. JIM JAM

    TLDR?

    Terribly Long Dreary Rhetoric?

  46. ……..Tiresome Litany Daily Repeated?

    Thousands of Letters of Doubtful Rightness?

1 2 3

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)