ICM and Ipsos MORI both published their latest voting intention figures last week. Topline voting intentions were

Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 39%(+2), LAB 42%(+3), LDEM 9%(nc)
ICM/Guardian – CON 41%, LAB 41%, LDEM 7%

Fieldwork for MORI was over last weekend, changes are from November. The ICM poll was part of a larger than usual sample of 5000, conducted between the 10th and 19th of January. I have not included changes since the previous ICM poll, as this one was actually partially conducted before ICM’s last poll. Full tabs are here for MORI, and here for ICM.

ICM also asked some questions about a second EU referendum. Asked how people would vote in a second referendum 45% said they would vote to Remain, 43% to Leave. These figures are broadly typical of most recent polls asking about a second referendum, which tend to show a very small lead for Remain. As in most other cases this is not really due to people changing their minds (the number of Leave voters switching to Remain is pretty much cancelled out by Remain voters switching to Leave), but down to people who did not vote in 2016 disproportionately claiming they would now vote Remain. The referendum question in this poll was not weighted or filtered by likelihood to vote.

ICM found 47% of people agreeing with a a statement that “I think the public should have the chance to take a final decision on whether or not to leave the EU in another referendum when the outcome of the negotiation is known?”. The Guardian have strangely written this up as a rise in Labour support for a second referendum, when ICM don’t appear to have ever asked this question before to compare it to. As all regular readers will know, how you ask a question can produce very different results and questions on a second referendum seem to show particular variation depending on how the question was asked (see an example here from Lord Ashcroft, asking the question in four different ways). In this case the question was asked as an agree/disagree structure (a question format that tends to produce a skew in favour of the statement), and characterised it in terms of “giving the public the chance to take a final decision”. My guess is that the higher support for a second referendum here may well be down to wording rather than a change in support, though as ever, we’ll only really know when we see repeats of questions that have been asked in the past.

Turning to other questions in the MORI poll, they asked a question on whether Donald Trump should be invited to Prince Harry’s wedding. Asked straight, 23% of people thought that he should, 69% that he should not. Half the sample saw an alternate question asking about inviting both Donald Trump *and* Barack Obama – this produced a slightly less negative response with 39% in favour, but still 54% against.


233 Responses to “Latest ICM and Ipsos MORI polls”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. “This might be of interest
    Shaking the magic money tree
    tonight 20:00 Radio 4

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pl66b

    ————–

    Good spot Alberto!! From the programme blurb…

    “Shaking the Magic Money Trees

    During last year’s general election, Theresa May argued there was “No magic money tree” to pay for the things some voters wanted. Although she was chided for being unsympathetic to various worthy spending claims, a more fundamental criticism could have been levelled at the Prime Minister: There is indeed a Magic Money Tree!! Since the financial crisis, no less than £435billion of new money has been created through the policy of “quantitative easing”, equivalent to a fifth of Britain’s annual GDP. In this programme, financial journalist Michael Robinson finds out what happened to this staggering sum of money, and evaluates its effect on the lives of us all.

    With the help of expert testimony, Robinson explains how this controversial policy works, effectively creating money at the push of a button. But as he also finds out, the new funds are only indirectly injected into the wider economy, typically through big institutional investors lending to companies. Few of these transactions, it turns out, have involved the kind of ‘real world’ investment that might be expected to stimulate the productive economy and generate growth. Indeed, almost all of them have been within the financial sector itself, and many people argue that the returns on QE have been astonishingly small.

    Moreover, the influx of cash has inflated the price of assets, and led to a relative widening of the gap between rich and poor, which now threatens to upset our economic and political order. Even QE’s deliberate objective to lower interest rates has also served to make homes and shares more expensive, while those already holding such assets have seen the greatest benefit. Britain’s own ‘Magic Money Tree’ might have saved the economy from meltdown almost a decade ago, but it seems its many side-effects might have been far less beneficial.

    Presenter: Michael Robinson
    Producer: Michael Gallagher
    Editor; Andrew Smith.
    Show less
    Add “Shaking the Magic Money Trees” to FavouritesAdd to Favourites

    Release date: 29 January 2018
    28 minutes”

  2. @ CHRIS RILEY

    Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid and Greens combined is 314, compared to the Tories’ 317. It could be tight, but unless the DUP join in or several Tory MPs vote against their own party (or Sinn Fein take their seats), then they ought to scrape it. I’d say the former is unlikely as the result of a new election could be a government led by a man who devoted most of his career in politics to camapigning for a united Ireland. The DUP may not be wildly keen on whoever the Tories select as their new leader, but the alternative could be a lot worse for them.

    I’m increasingly inclined to agree that May’s time is numbered. Quite aside from her handling of negotiations, there’s a great yawning chasm at the heart of where there ought to be a bold set of policy proposals. Whichever side of the party they sit on I think most Tory MPs are well aware that business as usual isn’t going to cut it and inertia will be fatal, and all May seems to offer is inertia. As for who that leader may be, I agree with others that there’s going to be a Brexit candidate on the ticket, and they’ll be the person the membership pick. Much as I’ve never liked him, I do think Gove might manage to take it, there isn’t an obvious alternative and I think that enough remain-leaning MPs might swing behind him to keep Mogg off the ticket. Javid for chancellor perhaps?

    As for the idea that the Tory party will let May be blown in the wind and pushed by the Irish into accepting the customs union (which, in Turkey’s case, doesn’t come with the EU’s trade deals to sell into other nations but requires the application of tariffs to goods which come from them), let alone the freedom of movement which the EU insists is attached to it, that seems a fantasy. There’s no way they’ll let it get to that without ousting her.

  3. In all the varied discussions about alternatives for the UK it seems to me that one thing is being neglected. The ‘deal’ needs the agreement of the 27 EU countries. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

    What they could agree on is the UK staying in – either because that would set an example for any other country contemplating leaving, or simply because it would avoid severe financial problems for the EU. Those two positions represent on the one hand a ‘punishment deal’ and on the other a pragmatic deal maximising existing trade arrangements over other membership commitments.
    I doubt whether they will agree on any other deal before March 2019. They are already saying they need six months (from October 2018) to discuss and pass such proposals. That means our Parliament must be presented with the UK proposal (not an agreed deal) well before October this year. Time flies.
    Throw into this mix the idea that the EU has to deal with its own future – is there to be ‘more Europe’ with more centralisation, or the opposite?
    What would we be staying in?

  4. Given that business funds the current government, and that demographics changing to potentially be more pro-Remain, what really are the odds on us leaving the EU, and if we do leave, on rejoining a little down the road?

  5. @Garj

    If the leadership campaign is particularly acrimonious, I think it is easy to see a scenario where the supporters of a losing candidate engineer and support a no-confidence vote, especially if that candidate were a particular entitled showboater fond of media leaks and of treating the entire UK political system as his own personal playground.

    Or, alternatively, if he somehow won.

    If, of course, the Tories have a civilised and straightforward leadership contest won by a uniting figure who commands respect across the whole party, this scenario will not arise but that figure does not, at present, exist and looks rather unlikely to appear any time soon.

  6. On well, businesspeople find their way.

    The FT is reporting that the head of Legatum, the main supporter of vote leave bought himself a Maltese (and hence EU) citizenship.

  7. Major is career politician at its best. May at its worst.

  8. Carfrew,

    I think that depends very much on the terms of re-entry, e.g. if we have to join the Eurozone.

  9. @BillP

    It might, but do younger people have the same attachment to Stirling that boomers might? Has polling revealed an age-related split on the issue?

  10. Also, while we ponder Brexit, the world moves on apace. Have people discussed the Blue cochair thing yet, which may revolutionise voting and even polling.

    Here’s a brief piece on the application to voting…

    https://followmyvote.com/online-voting-technology/blockchain-technology/

  11. @Lewblew

    “Major is career politician at its best. May at its worst.”

    Agree on Major, but I think you’re being a bit hard on May. She was handed a really tough job. She’s seems not to be up to it, but essentially the Tory party has put itself in an almost impossible situation that would take real genius to sort out. Cameron didn’t want to face up to the mess he’d created, at least May gave it a try.

  12. Lol, “blue cochair” is meant to be “Blockchain”

    Here’s another link, where a company using Blockchain for surveys is doing a pre-ICO…

    https://news.bitcoin.com/pr-clearpoll-social-public-opinion-poll-system-using-blockchain-launches-pre-ico/

  13. “She was handed a really tough job.”

    Ummm. no.

    She put herself forward for the role of PM and campaigned hard for it, knowing that she would need to deliver on Brexit. She wasn’t ‘handed’ anything. She grabbed it with both hands, even through she didn’t have a clue what to do about it.

  14. @Carfrew

    I’ve been wondering for some time if all that will be achieved from this is loss of vetos & rebate.

    It’s that or brexit in name only which for ages has looked like a candidate simply because that’s the only thing that might be acceptable to parliament. A ‘crash out’ will just be fudged around until a solution is found, anything else would have unacceptable consequences both sides of the channel.

    Re, Eurozone, the obligation to join it is entirely toothless. For a start, the UK would currently fail at least three of the tests (debt, deficit & exchange rate stability). The latter of those is critical as to pass that test the country essentially needs to join and stay in one of the ERMs for a couple of years at least. Joining ERM is voluntary, hence by extension joining the Euro cannot be forced. This is why sweden has yet to join and doesn’t look like doing so any time in the future despite not having a strict veto like the UK and Denmark does, it’s not in any ERM and the exchange rate does not pass stability requirements.

  15. @Trigguy

    Perhaps if she hadn’t jumped head first into Article 50 but had stalled – somehow – then things would be so much simpler now!

    Personality-wise, Major was no charisma machine but at least there was a backstory. Rags to riches, working class boy done good etc. I don’t know much about May and it’s perhaps this (and her uninspiring performance) which did for her at the election!

  16. Coming to up to the anniversary of when MPs voted by 498 v 114 to trigger Article 50.

    Having watched Corbyn on Marr, clearly he hasn’t changed his view. No new referendum, we are leaving.

  17. TRIGGUY
    ““She was handed a really tough job”

    I think this was more a problem within the Conservative party than the nation. I’d have thought the best way to deal with Brexit for the nation would have been to initialy do nothing but start a process of option review. When the options were clear and the civil service had had time to look at the numbers a general election could have been called where the parties presented their vision. The winner would then have a mandate to trigger article 50 and implement their vision in a calm resolute fashion. The problem would be for the Tories to not rip themselves apart while this happened. They may still do so.

  18. Sorry, last sentence shouldn’t be in italics.

  19. Interesting characterisation by climate change minister Claire Perry, of the hardline brexiters denouncing colleagues favouring a softer brexit as “sell-outs and tra!tors”

    She wrote (in a whatsapp message to fellow Tories):

    “The ‘sell-out tra!tor mob’ should be ignored…. I would hypothesise that they are mostly elderly retired men who do not have mortgages, school-aged children or caring responsibilities so they represent the swivel-eyed few not the many we represent.”

    That is certainly a recognisable type, but her making that comment suggests the depth of discord brewing in Tory ranks.

  20. @JAMESB

    “I’ve been wondering for some time if all that will be achieved from this is loss of vetos & rebate.

    It’s that or brexit in name only which for ages has looked like a candidate simply because that’s the only thing that might be acceptable to parliament. A ‘crash out’ will just be fudged around until a solution is found, anything else would have unacceptable consequences both sides of the channel.”

    ———

    The question is, who wields the power? The Leavers within the government, or the Pro-Remain business backers, Establishment etc.

    And among the Leavers, is there really much point if demographics might mean we rejoin anyway? (We might even wind up with a pro-Remain version of UKIP bleeding votes away from the main parties and forcing another referendum…)

  21. Anyone who thinks that a new tory leader would lose a vote of confidence in the HoC suffers from a severe case of wishful thinking. Those who were around in the Major era will remember arch eurosceptics like Bill Cash voting for Maastricht as it was part of a confidence motion. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. Add to that the DUP’s loathing of Jeremy Corbyn and the numbers just don’t stack up.

  22. @ CHRIS RILEY

    Seems like wishful thinking to me. Maybe, just maybe, a couple of the really awkward squad might abstain, but even that would seem almost on the level of resigning the whip. Even if it did precipitate an election, the only two outcomes are Corbyn or the leader they opposed becoming PM. Hardly much of a choice. Even if that did happen, you require every single opposition MP backing a motion of no confidence. I’m not even sure where the SNP might stand – is their cause better served by being in opposition to the hated Tories, especially if those hated Tories have been taken over by a Brexiteer?

    @ CARFREW

    I don’t think anybody’s using the Referendum Party name at the moment.

    You’d think that the Lib Dems ought to be a natural home for such disaffected remainers (or returners as they might become), but they remain so toxic with the youth that they might be a busted flush. On top of that, despite whatever platitudes Lansman might utter to the contrary, there are the 50 or so Labour deselection candidates. As they get the mechanisms in place and the prospect of an election looms Momentum seem sure to want to give at least some of those MPs the boot in favour of more socialist candidates. I can’t imagine that they’ll all go gently into that good night, maybe the basis of a new centrist returner party is in there somewhere.

  23. ALEC

    “She put herself forward for the role of PM and campaigned hard for it, knowing that she would need to deliver on Brexit. She wasn’t ‘handed’ anything. She grabbed it with both hands, even through she didn’t have a clue what to do about it.”

    It seems to me that she is the opposite of a conviction politician. I’m not a fan of either Corbyn or Rees Mogg but at ;east you have a very good idea of what they believe in.

    Once she was PM she could – IF she had really believed it was right – gone emphatically for a “sensible” *** brexit.

    Instead she sent out codes that all wings of the party were then free to interpret as they chose.

    After her first little speech outside no. 10 I assumed that she would at least try to transfer her words into some sort of change of government policy to help those, just about managing – that she spoke about.

    But nothing.

    What I don’t understand is what is afraid of? Stand or fall by what you believe seems such an obvious concept that I can only assume that she actually doesn’t have the sort of strong beliefs that can turn into meaningful policies that change people’s lives.

  24. oh …………… “sensible” *** brexit.

    *** Oxymoron.

  25. GARJ @ CHRIS RILEY

    I’m not even sure where the SNP might stand – is their cause better served by being in opposition to the hated Tories, especially if those hated Tories have been taken over by a Brexiteer?

    If they propped up the Cons until A50 applies they would almost certainly be trounced by SLab in the 2021 Scottish GE and probably in the UK GE whenver that comes.

    About the only circumstance I can see them supporting the Cons would be if HMG offered Scottish Independence without the chore of a referendum, so that Scotland could remain in the EU, perhaps with NI & Gibraltar as part of the Kingdom of Scotland.

    Somehow, I don’t see HMG being willing to go that far!

  26. @Garj

    LDs indeed trashed most of their key selling points with u-turns on tuition fees, Austerity, the Miserable Compromise and even allowing the referendum leading to the vote to leave the EU. How long does it take to come back from that?

    It’s possible there might be room for a centrist returner party, but as demographics change, where that centre lies is something else. Liberals within all the main parties tended to think the centre lay with them, which may possibly have been a bit wide of the mark…

  27. @ CARFREW – LAB have successfully distanced themselves from the Blair years, what is to stop LDEM distancing themselves from the Clegg years? If anything the process should be easier for LDEM as they were junior coalition partners, not a full majority.

    IMHO Cable should hand the leadership over to Swinson asap and they use that process and timing for a relaunch. Farron ‘retiring’ and forcing a by-election in his seat probably also useful in the relaunch effort. What else?
    – Formal pact with SNP and Greens under a pro-EU banner (most of ground work in place already with the ‘stop hard brexit’ group that empty chaired Corbyn)
    – Entice some pro-Remain LAB to join them (possibly even the odd pro-Remain CON but less likely and fewer numbers there)

    We obviously don’t have a president position as the launch pad but Macron showed a brand new party is possible. If LAB-Remain MPs wanted a more anti-austerity party than LDEM then start a new party but still go for the formal pacts with other pro-EU parties.

    I don’t see it happening myself but how can the likes of Umunna sleep at night being so supposedly pro-EU under a pro-Brexit leader?

  28. A centre party is likely doomed to failure while the UK runs on the current voting system.

    A new party would only really succeed if the tories and/or labour implode over brexit, and that would probably in part may depend on donors.

  29. @Trevor

    “@ CARFREW – LAB have successfully distanced themselves from the Blair years, what is to stop LDEM distancing themselves from the Clegg years? If anything the process should be easier for LDEM as they were junior coalition partners, not a full majority.”

    ——-

    Not everyone is as ecstatic about Blair’s policies as some, and many parties do u-turns of course, but Blair didn’t do such a wholesale u-turn on the scale of the massive capitulation of the LDs.

    As for the idea that being a junior party absolves the LDs, well that’s rather wishful thinking. The LDs had negotiating clout but squandered it on attempts at base party advantage, on government jobs for the Orange Bookers, on referenda on the miserable compromise etc.

  30. @JAMESB

    “A centre party is likely doomed to failure while the UK runs on the current voting system.

    A new party would only really succeed if the tories and/or labour implode over brexit, and that would probably in part may depend on donors.”

    ————

    Well although not necessarily centrist, UKIP succeeded sufficiently to help force a referendum on the EU. Or you might say they were centrist on the main EU issue at least, being as a majority voted Brexit. Meanwhile, the limiting factor on new parties or policies arising, the mainstream press, are possibly
    Losing their grip, as seen in the last GE.

  31. @ Barbazenzero @GARJ @ CHRIS RILEY

    “About the only circumstance I can see them supporting the Cons would be if HMG offered Scottish Independence without the chore of a referendum, so that Scotland could remain in the EU, perhaps with NI & Gibraltar as part of the Kingdom of Scotland.

    Somehow, I don’t see HMG being willing to go that far!”

    Depends on how pragmatic as opposed to ideologically Unionist the Tories are! Politically it would mean that in a house of commons without Scotland would give the Tories an overall majority they would have 305 seats out of a total of 591.
    In the recent era I would not rule out any level of cynical positioning.

  32. WB

    I think of myself as fairly cynical, but you’re in a higher league!

  33. Re The Money Tree prog. blurb:-

    ” But as he also finds out, the new funds are only indirectly injected into the wider economy, typically through big institutional investors lending to companies. Few of these transactions, it turns out, have involved the kind of ‘real world’ investment that might be expected to stimulate the productive economy and generate growth.”

    I have a feeling that this is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of QE.

    BoE’s Asset Purchase program was an excercise in Enhancing Liquidity of the Financial Sector. Its background was the Freezing of Credit Markets in UK & their subsequent severe curtailment in the wake of the Banking Crisis & resultant Recession. ie its aim was to ensure that absence of Credit Lines to UK plc was not damaging to UK economy.

    That is why its transmission route was the offer to exchange Gilts ALREADY HELD on the Balance Sheets of Financial Institutions for Cash ( or quasi cash in the form of a Credit Balance with BoE).

    So perhaps the ultimate verdict on the economic outcomes from QE should focus on the amount of Corporate Failure from lack of Credit which was avoided , rather than the amount of shiny new factories built.

    That QE inflated Asset values & provided opportunity for speculative gains seems manifest. BoE will have to answer for that-as they will for the massive transfer of income from Savers to Borrowers they engineered with their post Crash Monetary Policy-a transfer which still operates to this day.

  34. CROFTY

    @”What I don’t understand is what is afraid of?”

    Nor me Crofty-and so I’m beginning to think the answer is ” Making Decisions”.

    SOMERJOHN

    @” her making that comment suggests the depth of discord brewing in Tory ranks.”

    It didn’t really need to. This wretched topic eventually throws up this particular strand of the Tory Party.

    On this occasion what I really don’t understand is why they are getting so excercised about the Transition Period.

    The whole point of it is to provide UKplc with a period of NO CHANGE during which , with certainty, they can prepared for a DEFINED CHANGE-once & not twice.

    “No Change” means-the same trading rules & conditions as before March 2019. That is the WHOLE point.

    Now if they had been creating trouble because they think that there will not be a “Defined change” come March 2019, and that UK plc will not have 2 years of “certainty” at all-but just another 2 years of watching The Government negotiating without knowing the End State at the end of it-I would be supporting them.

    Because that is my concern.

    But they don’t seem bothered about that-but then no one else does either as far as I can see.

  35. @Colin

    The programme blurb indeed acknowledges the role QE played in saving business. I.e.

    “Britain’s own ‘Magic Money Tree’ might have saved the economy from meltdown almost a decade ago, but it seems its many side-effects might have been far less beneficial.”

    They’re are possibly therefore taking what you say as read and exploring the subsequent effects.

  36. CARFREW

    Thanks

    I can accept that.

  37. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/01/what-jeremy-corbyn-and-tory-voters-have-common

    Quite a lot as this YouGov survey suggests:

    “A large part of the answer comes from a special YouGov survey conducted exclusively for the New Statesman. It shows that ideology, as defined by political theorists and commentators, is very different from ideology as viewed by millions of voters. The former is tidy, the latter messy. Theorists detect a coherent intellectual structure to the concepts of Right and Left; voters hold a variety of pick-and-mix attitudes to the issues of the day.

    “However, what does emerge is that on most issues (though not all), Jeremy Corbyn’s view of society is more in tune with the British people than the centreground theory of electoral success would predict.”

    The polling was last November: http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4b0fz1wav2/PeterKellnerResults_171121_IdeologyStatements_w.pdf

  38. JamesB,

    Sweden is not negotiating new membership of the EU.

    Carfrew,

    I think that a lot would depend on what happens to the Eurozone. Certainly, it’s easy to make a case against membership now, which is why even the Lib Dems seem to have given up on it for a while.

  39. @Garj

    Agree with most of your analysis. Gove is 12/1 to be the next leader. There may be some value there. Rees Mogg is the current favourite on 4/1.

    I wonder if JRM is a real possibility, it certainly would make for an interesting time in Parliament with two conviction politicians at opposite ends of the spectrum. And both being long-standing hardcore Brexiteers of course.

  40. @LeftieLiberal

    Very interesting research! It does raise key issues for both parties though.
    For Labour how does Corbyn, in particular, overcome the perceptions that polling tends to show that he does not rate highly in leadership, but at the same time keep the “authentic” label. Perhaps more importantly how can the shadow cabinet overall begin to demonstrate qualities that overcome perceptions of a lack of economic competence without undermining their caring credentials?

    For the Conservatives their difficulties will lie in the perception that they do not favour equality (the nasty party label), in addition their approach to big business will be seen negatively yet how do they alter this without altering opinions on their economic competence?

    Perhaps both parties need an updated Phillips machine!

  41. Goodness me, those on the right getting aerated and declaiming that the Tories will do unity no matter what seem to be ignoring what is *actually happening right now*.

    Holding your fingers in your ears and shouting ‘la la not listening’ is not stopping it happening. Tories – who are in Government and facing a brutal legislative challenge – are fighting like ferrets in a sack. The party is splitting. We can all see it splitting. It is happening before us. It might not split, but shouting that it cannot possibly split is simply denying reality. Of course it could.

    Dear me.

  42. @ Bill Patrick

    They are not, but that’s irrelevant, Sweden still has the same treaty obligation to join the euro as soon as convergence criteria are met as any newer member does and will do.

    Since the stable exchange rate criteria essentially involves joining ERM II which is entirely voluntary a country can join or not as and when it chooses. The UK would be no different if it were to rejoin post brexit, although I’m sure the brexit supporting press would spin otherwise just as it does now.

    Incidentally Poland, Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria are in the same situation as sweden. All meet the convergence criteria except joining ERMII, the latter two are moving forward with it, the former two are not because it’s not popular with the public and its not on their governments’ agendas.

    Anyway, as I mentioned, the UK doesn’t even satisfy all of the other convergence criteria anyway, we’re quite a way short in fact.

  43. @Leftieliberal

    “Theorists detect a coherent intellectual structure to the concepts of Right and Left; voters hold a variety of pick-and-mix attitudes to the issues of the day.”

    ——–

    This chimes with what I’ve argued before now, that people tend to take what they might find to be the best bits from each political strand and cast aside the more extreme bits. So they might like some immigration, but free movement is something else. They might like public sector – especially for certain essentials – but also lots of private sector beyond that. They want welfare but not a free ride etc.

    The parties tend to be more purist about things, but voters not so much.

  44. Alberto,
    ” I’d have thought the best way to deal with Brexit for the nation would have been to initialy do nothing but start a process of option review. When the options were clear and the civil service had had time to look at the numbers a general election could have been called where the parties presented their vision.”

    Isnt that what happened?

    The Monk,
    “. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.”

    Thats the point. After the options review as per alberto, the tories realised that to carry through Brexit was a suicide ticket. The rationale for so crazily defying their voter base is that to do as asked is even worse.

  45. JamesB,

    “that’s irrelevant”

    It’s relevant because it makes the comparison with Sweden irrelevant. The UK would not be in a Sweden-style situation.

    The comparison with the Eastern Europeans is also not relevant, because (a) the EU was very keen to get them in, not least for geopolitical reasons, and (b) they hadn’t snubbed the EU by leaving it.

  46. David Davies answering questions in the Lords Brexit Committee
    “The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom’s intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement”

    he has also said that the first stage agreement is not currently fixed, there are some differences on interpretation but it is hoped that it will become fixed this March.

    So nothing is agreed until everything is agreed will only be the case until March and on NI even if no agreement then there will be customs alignment (meaning outcomes) no matter what!
    Cannot see the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg liking this one little bit.

  47. @Danny

    139 Tory MPs publically declared for Leave at the Referendum. There are approx 150 total. Most of the remainers since then accept the result. Perhaps there are a dozen arch-remainers.

    I know you want to believe the Tories are secretly plotting to remain. But I think you are in for disappointment. If Labour actually fought against Brexit your vision of what would amount to a humiliating u-turn might have marginally more chance. But Jezza wants out. We’re leaving.

  48. Bill,

    In which case, by what mechanism are you suggesting that the EU could force a returning UK to join the Euro?

  49. Somerjohn,

    “I would hypothesise that they are mostly elderly retired men who do not have mortgages, school-aged children or caring responsibilities so they represent the swivel-eyed few not the many we represent.”

    I find this a bit odd from Claire Perry as to me it seems a more likely characterisation of those who want a Hard Brexit, those who will be able to ride out any negative impacts.

    If your elderly retired and don’t have a mortgage, job losses and higher interest rates to defend the pound isn’t going to hurt you as much as someone in work with a mortgage.

    Still it’s a Tory Minister so what circles she moves in may well be different from most of us.

    Peter.

  50. @ Peter SNP

    not sure, but I was under the impression that Claire Perry was discussing those who had referred to the Tory rebels as tra!tors: can anyone confirm or dismiss this?

1 2 3 4 5