There are two new voting intention polls in the Sunday papers, tackling the issue of measuring TIG support in different ways…

Deltapoll for the Mail on Sunday have standard voting intentions of CON 43%, LAB 36%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 5%. Respondents were then asked how they would vote if The Independent Group put up candidates at the next election – voting intention under those circumstances switches to CON 39% (four points lower), LAB 31%(five points lower), TIF 11%, LDEM 5%(one point lower). The implication is that the Independent Group are taking some support from both Labour and Conservative though, as we saw with the YouGov poll earlier in the week, it’s not necessarily as simple as a direct transfer – part of the difference may well be people saying don’t know. Fieldwork was between Thurs and Saturday, full results are here.

Opinium for the Observer meanwhile only asked their standard voting intention question, but have begun including TIG in that. This flags up an interesting dilemma for polling companies. The Independent Group are obviously not a political party. While the widespread expectation is that at some point in the future they will become a political party, they aren’t registered as one yet, and aren’t putting up candidates yet. This means that most polling companies are asking hypothetical questions about the level of support they would get if they did stand, but are not currently including them in standard voting questions.

Opinium however are offering them as a current option – presumably their thinking is that it’s only a matter of time before they register and if poll respondents’ intention is already to vote for them when they do, they should register it. The approach Opinium has taken will clearly be the correct way to do it once the TIG do evolve into a political party, the question is whether it’s too early to do it now. Either way, for what it’s worth Opinium’s first polling figures with TIG included as an option are CON 40%(+3), LAB 32%(-5), LDEM 5%(-3), TIG 6%(+6), UKIP 7%(nc). Fieldwork was Wednesday to Friday, and changes are from a week ago. Full results are here.

To be complete, as well as the SkyData and Survation polls I’ve already written about here, which showed TIG support at 10% and 8% respectively, there was also a YouGov poll midweek. That found standard topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 33%, LDEM 10% and hypothetical figures of CON 38%, LAB 26%, LDEM 7%, TIG 14% (full write up is here. Overall that means, depending on the different questions asked and approaches taken, the initial level of support for the TIG seems to be between 6% and 14%.

1,929 Responses to “Latest voting intention polls & measuring potential TIG support”

1 36 37 38 39
  1. @ DANNY – Do you even bother to read my posts before commenting?

    May controls the “payroll” vote in an internal leadership challenge. 117 against was a huge number, way more than expected.

    Perhaps look up the end of Thatcher who took a bit of time to take the hint but went in the end.

    May can chose to limp on but one way or another her position can be made so untenable that she has no choice but to resign or be “sacked” by HoC – the timing of which does not suit Corbyn, Boris, ERG, DUP, Remain MPs or anyone else just yet – but soon perhaps (not so for Remain MPs though as you can’t run a new ref before July 2nd)

    Now I don’t want a GE but looking how difficult it is already for CON as HMG to get their business through parliament I can see that we probably need one and have explained the HoC maths and Brexit process issues as to why we might well end up having one.

    That is not a prediction, just a thought through analysis of the situation and the plausible scenarios ahead.

  2. @Trevors – “They [New Financial] don’t disclose how they are funded!”

    I’m a little bit surprised that with your incredible research abilities you weren’t able to identify this? From the link you kindly supplied, you can see that amongst their members and supporters are the following institutions:

    Affiliated Managers Group * AFME * Allianz Global Investors * Barclays * Cboe Europe * Berenberg * BlackRock * BNP Paribas * BNY Mellon * City of London Corporation * Columbia Threadneedle Investments * CQS * Hermes Investment Management * JP Morgan * Legal & General * Liquidnet * Lombard Odier Investment Managers * London Stock Exchange Group * Nationwide * Nomura * Pension Insurance Corporation * Schroders * Virgin Money”

    Quite a few big names in the industry, who know just a little about the financial sector, I would have said.

    Also, your earlier post, where you say –

    “What they obviously don’t consider is the possible benefits of a “Clean” and “Quick” break.”

    is completely irrelevant. As I implied in my original post, this is nothing to do with what type of Brexit we get. This is simply stuff that has already happened, and in the view of New Financial, won’t be reversed.

    Given this, it’s safe to admit that the hit on the city was far greater than you thought. No one will mind you admitting that – we all get things wrong sometimes.

  3. @TW
    I agree we should be sceptical to a degree of all thinktanks and other organisations where their funding and independence is opaque – bear in mind that this equally impacts the credibility of a whole raft of well-known Brexit-supporting thinktanks that share a common address!

    I also agree that while the value of funds that have moved is crystal clear, the impact of that move on tax revenues and jobs is more opaque. However it clearly will not be nil – as a simple example transaction processing fees will accrue in a different jurisdiction, etc.

    My company continues to hire frantically in Dublin to support banks and financial intermediaries moving business to Ireland – those companies may run parallel operations in London for a bit, meaning jobs aren’t lost here immediately, but in the long term they will want to save the cost of having two teams, and they must retain the team in Dublin for regulatory reasons, so we know where the axe will fall. Unless of course we expect banks to become charitable organisations in the future…?

    The UK arm of my firm will have to close its operations in the EU overnight in the event of a ‘no deal’ – its not huge, only 3% of revenue, but that’s 20 UK employees out of a job… Any future business for us in the EU will be done through Dublin, hiring Irish staff and paying tax to the Irish revenue.

    It’s an example of just how easy it has been for the UK to export services while in the EU relative to how hard it will be once we are outside. The market in Services may not be 100% liberalised but it is still much easier to operate in than anywhere else in the world, something that may change overnight on 30th March 2019.

  4. @ ALEC – Two obvious questions for you from the “free” bit of their report (via the link I posted for you)

    1/ “The bad news is that the impact of Brexit is bigger than we expected”

    So did they previously expect virtually no impact?

    2/ In their report do they list the number of jobs (and related tax revenues) that have come in to UK (ie are they giving a “net” number and prediction or a “one-sided” number)

    It never ceases to amaze me how you jump on any article that gives you the story you want to hear and make no attempt to see the gaping flaws in the analysis.

    If you were invited to one of their private dinners I hope you had a nice meal!

  5. My son who has had an interest in Flags (Flegs for Sam) tells me that Texas is the only state in the US that can fly it’s flag at the same height as the US flag. I guess this has something to do with they way they joined the Union and their prior status.

    Maybe Turk can add something when he is awake?

  6. As for “The total tax contribution
    of UK financial services”

    Then since Brexit they’ve gone up – quite a bit!
    (ie another “Project Fear” myth busted)

    Now these guys have a “pro Financial Services” bias but their methodology is consistent and they’ve been around a long time, change versus previous year

    2015 £66.5bn (+£1.0bn)
    2016 £71.4bn (+£4.9bn)
    2017 £72.1bn (+£0.7bn)
    2018 £75.0bn (+£2.9bn)

    From 2015 (last full year pre-Brexit) to 2018 (last full year) then the total tax contribution of UK financial services has risen by

    £8.5bn (13% or 4% annualised)

    NB this is UK wide and the whole sector so net job losses (see p18 onwards) contain the ongoing reduction of “high street” presence for banks. I don’t think people are blaming that on Brexit so I’d encourage folks to adjust for “non-Brexit” factors if they use the employment data.


    Withdrawing the dice might perhaps cool ideas of a change of leader?

    Thanks for the information on Sec 127 which I had missed earlier.

  8. @ ALEC – Thanks for taking the bait.

    So they are funded mostly by the banks (ie those with a vested interest).

    I did see the City of London in there so thought you might be interested in their most recent analysis (due to delay issue I’ve already posted that).

    No £7.5-£10bn hit but a £8.5bn gain (as we see more broadly with jobs since Brexit, Planet Remain has an issue with getting the “sign” correct on the number)

    @ BFR – I’ve never said the impact would be “nil”. Some 2-way and the initial flow would be net against UK (as we have a large trade surplus in services)

    The move to Dublin started before Brexit. Obviously Brexit has increased the scale and urgency of those net outward flows – I’m not denying companies are moving assets or jobs (a lot of which is “doubling up” and creating new jobs in Dublin whilst keeping UK workers) just amused at the one-sided bias.

    Brexit is a “cost” to many of the banks, etc and hence why they are lobbying to prevent it and/or reduce its impact on them – I respect that is what “lobbying” is and hence any “lobby” group info needs a “bias filter” attached to it.

    However, consider companies that wish to expand service exports from UK to the fastest growing countries in the World – where a Comprehensive trade deal (“mixed” in EC language) would mean they could “sell” from UK, with higher IP protection rather than have to “sell” locally often with IP risk (in many cases they currently won’t do the latter)

    It doesn’t even have to be a full trade deal just expansion of equivalence rules or “mini deals”, etc

    Now I’m not making predictions that is what will happen but given the choice of a bit less access to the slow growth, increasingly isolanisionist EU versus the opportunity for greater access to the larger and faster growing rWorld – it’s a slam dunk win (in aggregate) for a Quick+Clean Brexit.

    If we stay in EU:

    a/ Will the banks, etc that have moved to Dublin return (Yes/No)?
    b/ Will we always and forever be able to clear “Euros” outside of EZ, or might that become “EZ-only” one day (Yes/No)?
    c/ Will be able to change some of the daft EC regulations that have done the opposite of their intended purpose and made London a less attractive base versus likes Singapore or New York (eg bonus cap that effectively increases fixed costs and lowers the performance element of pay) – Yes/No?

    I’ll admit we can influence global equivalence rules negotiations, etc outside of EU already as not everything currently falls under their remit. We’ve been doing that and provided McDonnell never gets into #11 hopefully we will continue to do so.

  9. @TW
    You get that just mapping Financial Services tax take is totally meaningless in analysing the Brexit effect, right?
    I’m sure you do, at least some of the Trevors appear to be pretty smart.

    For example, the UK financial services sector is still recovering from the financial crisis – Lloyds, Barclays and RBS profits are up over that period as lending margins recover, which means sector Corp Tax payments are up, but no one (sensible) would suggest that this is down to Brexit…

  10. Colin proper LOL, am still chortling now.

  11. @ TW

    The tax take from Corporation tax lags some considerable time behind events. The transfer of assets in the past financial year will not affect tax receipts until such time as 2018/19 Corporation Tax is due to be paid – and the deadline for doing so is 9 months after the end of the financial year.

  12. Peter W

    The annexation of Savoy (and Nice) to France is not an example of a “sovereign nation joining a union”. Both were parts of the sovereign Kingdom of Sardinia, which were ceded by Cavour to France in return for French aid against the Austrian Empire.

    It may be that you are convinced that the “sovereignty of the people” (99.8% supporting the annexation in the plebiscite) qualifies it as one, but that would be to take a bizarre view of that plebiscite!

    While the American settlers in Texas had rebelled against Mexico and created de facto independence, their ambition had been to be annexed by the USA. Texas was not a “sovereign state” joining a union.

    In Italian unification, the other states were either conquered and annexed by Sardinia, or faced popular rebellions in which the sovereign powers were overthrown and the rebels demanded annexation by Sardinia. These were not Treaties of Union between sovereign states.

    In the German Confederation, all the members barring the 5 southern ones, were forced by military means into the Prussian controlled North German Confederation. These were not sovereign states voluntarily joining a union.

    Whether the accession of Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt, to the German Confederation were done by “agreements” between the Confederation and the states, constitute “treaties”, I’ll leave up to international constitutional lawyers, but as far as I’m aware, no documents that would constitute a formal treaty between sovereign states and a union exist.

    Again, when Bavaria and Württemberg joined the new German Empire, the procedure was conducted by proclaiming the constitution of the Empire, rather than by formal treaty.

    (I quite enjoyed re-visiting some aspects of history that I haven’t looked at for years!)

  13. Ooooh!

    I wonder why the financial sector tax take has grown as the recovery from the greatest financial recession since the 1930’s kicks in?


    I wonder if the person who posted this – “In their report do they list the number of jobs (and related tax revenues) that have come in to UK (ie are they giving a “net” number and prediction or a “one-sided” number)…”

    did an analysis to see whether these were coming anyway?

    [As it happens, the New Financial analysis purports to give a like for like net assessment of the actual impact of Brexit….]

    @Alec, March 11th, 2019 at 8:18 am –

    “There will be many leaver posters on here who dismiss this and come out with reams of data as to why yet another independent specialist group is wrong…..”

    Thanks for taking the bait @Trevors!

    So very tiresomely predictable!!!!!

    Life on Planet Leave continues, untroubled by either fact or experience.

    By the way @Trevors – you’ve made a few howlers in your use of the financial sector tax data.

    You’ve taken the total figure for taxes borne by the sector added to other peoples taxes collected via the financial institutions. It’s an easy mistake to make, but the actual figure for the tax contribution from the companies themselves for 2018 was just £33.5bn. The other £41bn was our money the banks collected on behalf of HMG, but £75bn makes for some good PR for the gullible.

    Second, you didn’t think how it compares in the big picture. So the overall tax contribution (both direct and collected) from the sector has fallen as a %of total tax from 13.9% in 2007 and 11.5% in 2016 – to 10.9% in 2018. Therefore in relative terms, the financial services industry is contributing less tax since the referendum than before. Ooops!.

    Finally, what about other reasons why the take take might vary?

    The bank surcharge was introduced in 2016, increasing the corporation tax rate from 19% to 27%. In the same year, the available offset against brought forward losses was cut in half. Virtually all of the increase in direct taxation since 2016 has actually come because, err, we’re taxing the banks more than we did in 2016.

    Apart from that, it was a very decent effort.

  14. SAM @ BZ

    You’re welcome.

    Also worth reading the article from 2018-03-01 from which suggested that A.127 notice needed to be given on 2018-03-29 if we are to leave the EEA and the EU at the same time.


  15. Simon Coveney just said that Theresa May will fly to Strasbourg tonight – Irish govt now making announcements on behalf of UK (Talk Radio columnist)

  16. Brexit latest: PM meeting with senior aides in No10 now to plot a way through this week’s carnage. I’m told it’s most likely she will decide to change tomorrow’s vote from a meaningful one to a provisional one – ie her deal, plus Cox’s changes (Tom Newton-Dunn)

  17. @OldNat

    “Simon Coveney just said that Theresa May will fly to Strasbourg tonight – Irish govt now making announcements on behalf of UK (Talk Radio columnist)”

    Does she plan to address the EP?

  18. RAF

    Maybe just to play an EP version of Piaf’s greatest hit?

  19. @TOH your Atomik survey is interesting and I tried but failed to find the numbers for it. On the face of it, however, it may not be interesting for the reasons you think.

    In this sample 42 voted remain out of 95 voting i.e. 44%

    On the numbers you give, the number who would now vote remain is (42*.82) +(53*.073)=38.256

    The numbers voting leave are (53*.87) + (42*.16)=51.24

    So the proportion of those expected to vote and voting remain would be 38.26/89.5. or approximately 43% as against the previous 44%. If none of those who didn’t vote before vote and those who say they are not going to vote don’t, then the influence of this section of the populace on the result would diminish.

    On balance then this poll supports the view that there has been very little net change in this group of the population. Not surprising perhaps given that most of them don’t have to worry about their jobs and they seem to be remarkably sanguine about the impact of Brexit on terrorism and the cost of living.

    But then again, I am not sure that this poll supports anything very much. It’s difficult to find the figures. Someone said that the base for some of the percentages was around a 100. As someone else pointed out Atomik seem to be more of a PR firm than a polling one (not surprising, perhaps, I was once (1988) responsible for commissioning a poll from a very respectable company and the salesman asked me what answers I wanted to the questions!). The percentages seem odd. Did 95% of over 50s really vote in the referendum? Is it believable that 16% of the remainers have changed their mind, when all other polls suggest that few change theirs? By definition the poll does not include the dead.

    So all in all I wouldn’t put too much weight on this poll. As someone said – it all depends on how you tell em.

  20. @ BFR – “You get that just mapping Financial Services tax take is totally meaningless in analysing the Brexit effect, right?”


    Will you then also agree that the claim that UK has already taken a huge Brexit specific hit on tax revenue is wrong (or at a minimum is very difficult to isolate in terms of “Brexit specific”)

    Any chance you/others could answer the three simple questions I set.

    I could state a lot more potential upsides but they are TBA.

    I don’t normally go in for anecdotes but if we don’t have a Quick and Clean break from Brussels then a lot of potential Asian business (which would provide UK jobs and taxes) will go to Singapore, NY, Zurich, etc.

    Perhaps you’ve heard the term “do a Dyson’?

    The uncertainty is the biggest problem and a “Blindfold” Brexit that drags that uncertainty out will not encourage the good type of FDI that brings jobs and taxes to UK.

    @ JAMES E – You usually don’t directly tax assets and when you do the revenue from that source is relatively small. The City of London report discusses this. See Fig4 (p12).

    However, I’ll fully agree that employee and corporation “tax rates” (amongst many other factors) do effect the location decision of geographically mobile sectors such as financial services.

    This is v.likely the main reason why Dublin is the major beneficiary of new jobs (and the cheaper taxes those companies will now pay).

    On a “per capita” basis Macron must be pretty miffed so few businesses have chosen Paris for EU (EZ) location.

    “London” needs to protect and promote it’s strengths. HMG needs to see other countries as “competitors” after our jobs and taxes (why I’m so against McDonnell as CoE – he fails to see the L4ffer curve as a “Global” issue for geographically mobile sectors and would chase away the Golden Geese!).

  21. “This is v.likely the main reason why Dublin is the major beneficiary of new jobs”

    The report says Dublin’s main attraction is its common language, single supervisory structure and expertise, close ties with the UK financial sector, the liveability of Dublin itself, and its role as an established financial centre.

  22. @ ALEC – “the recovery from the greatest financial recession since the 1930’s kicks in?”

    but, but, but, aren’t we supposed to be in a massive recession right now with all these banks leaving the UK and taking jobs and taxes with them?!?


    The rest of you post confirms it is almost impossible to disaggregate the data which is why

    I’m not the one claiming £7.5bn or £10bn hits – just mocking those that did.

    Would you agree that it is great to see our total tax receipts going up so strongly that the increase from financial service sector is actually lower in % terms – Yes/No

    A link from OBR back in Autumn, new one coming later this week of course which will show further improvement: I’m sure, as usual, you’ll ignore the historic facts and instead look at the crystal ball part.

    (Hint: what does that mean for taxes from other parts of the economy and UK’s need to continue to be strong on services of course but rebalance it’s economy to sectors and regions that have been “left behind” by the London-centric model).

    PS It would be nice is Hammond notices the strength of tax receipts and gets his wallet out. If he tries “bribes” or “blackmail” he will be deservedly slammed by the opposition and the press.

  23. Most recent OBR report (Jan’19 released in Feb) here:

    Spending is up, receipts are up even more so as they modestly state:

    ” borrowing is now down almost half relative to the same period in 2017-18 – a slightly larger fall than
    implied by our latest full-year forecast”

    Even during the Brexit uncertainty period – who’d have thunk it!??! I know a lot of “experts” who got that very wrong!

  24. @TW to answer your question:
    ‘Will you then also agree that the claim that UK has already taken a huge Brexit specific hit on tax revenue is wrong (or at a minimum is very difficult to isolate in terms of “Brexit specific”)’

    Well, no actually!

    I will agree it is not yet proven, as the Brexit effects that have been isolated by various studies relate to the transfer of money under management, not jobs or tax revenues.

    However the transfer of money under management will give rise to reductions in tax take and transfer of jobs, I just can’t be sure of the size and timing of those impacts.

    So I can agree that I don’t know whether the impact has been ‘huge’, just that there clearly is an impact, which is clearly negative.

    An attempt to quantify he tax take impact has been published at £7.5bn per annum; I’m not in a position to critique that estimate either to confirm or deny – and nor, I suspect, are you.

    On the other hand, the numbers you are throwing around are just totally irrelevant to the question in hand, but I suspect that you already know that…

  25. Alec

    “Can you see why sometimes people question the intelligence of some leavers?”

    Not at all, plenty of such reports have proved wrong in the past. I think this will prove wrong in the future. As I have said many times happy to debate the likely effects again in 2030 (assuming I am still around) and that we leave properly.

    “Then, on the basis of absolutely no evidence or logic whatsoever, you claim that what you said wouldn’t happen that already has happened, even before we’ve left the EU, will automatically be reversed once we have left the EU.

    I cannot remember saying this wouldn’t happen. I remember saying there would not be the 100,000 job losses in the financial sector and there haven’t been.

    “You then accuse me of “..yet again [you are] equating Brexit with economic matters”, which is again completely untrue.”

    Really, I would suggest that at least 60% i.e. the majority of your posts on Brexit relate to economic matters.

  26. I don’t normally buy the biased media argument and don’t now but the QT makers are so poor in many respects and here is another one of failing to check audience affiliation.

  27. EOTW

    “For you maybe but how many of the 17,410,742 were swayed by the £350,000 a week? ”

    If we leave properly it will be far more than £350m a week in the long term.

  28. There is a reason I don’t often post links!! I don’t seem to be able to transfer platform to platform and the one in my 3.34 is the wrong one.

    Upshot QT audience full of Tory activists that got chosen by Ms Bruce, as I see not biased just lazy and incompetent program making.

  29. Old news JJ. Every time there’s an SNP politician on the panel, there’s a hand-picked question to attack them.

    Mother of all democracies and all that.

  30. @Trevors – Not apologising, but I’m going to completely skewer you now.

    If you go back and carefully re-read my 8.18am post, you’ll see that I say “…so that means we’ve _potentially_ lost just over 0.5% of GDP….” and “…which _suggests_ a loss to the treasury of between £7bn – £8bn…”.

    I quite specifically didn’t make definitive statements about the actual loss of tax revenues, because we don’t yet have these facts – although it’s fair to say that the people who pay these taxes seem to think this is going to be what happens. You decided to erroneously make this into a discussion on taxation details. Another Straw (tax)Man Moment.

    My point, which I was quite clear on, was that major capital transfers have occurred, that these have been far greater than leavers forecast, that these are likely to get bigger, and that job losses will follow, consistent with some of the more alarming predictions from some remainers.

    The tax issue was an entertaining by product, but thanks for taking the bait!, as they say.


    “So all in all I wouldn’t put too much weight on this poll. As someone said – it all depends on how you tell em.”

    I said it was interesting that’s all. Remainers seem up in arms about it because it does not fit there view.

    It’s not from a regular polling company so of questionable value, but still interesting.

  32. On some different but recent UKPR subjects. Many of us seem to read Guardian politics live (either for the comedy or for the spin) but for those that don’t they’ve been having a bit of a Q&A today with readers:

    Subject: You can’t block “No Deal”

    Q (15:03) :“Are we out of the EU regardless of whether Parliament might have voted against ‘No deal’ and/or for an extension?”

    A: “The answer is yes. The parliamentary votes would not count…”

    Also at 12:17 they cover

    Subject: How CON MPs could get rid of May

    Q: “Could you provide an update to explain what mechanism they could use to remove her (May)?”

    In the answer:

    1/ “For example, there could be a mass cabinet walk-out”
    2/ “MPs could start refusing to vote for government business (aka “go on strike”)”
    3/ “As a last resort Conservative MPs could also vote against the government in a confidence motion”

    Great to see the denizens of Planet Remain catching up with Gammonland ;)

    All from their politics live section found from here (in the unlikely event anyone hasn’t already seen it)

  33. Danny
    ““The group found of the 53% of respondents that voted leave the European Union in 2016, 87% would vote the same again, while 7.2% would now vote remain and the rest wouldn’t vote.”

    You forgot to mention the 42% that voted remain, 82% still would, while 16% would now vote to leave the bloc.”
    So more people overall would vote to leave.

    “Just because its amusing, go get a history of the scottish kings and their diasters and you will have a synopsis of the extraordinary events making up the plot of ‘game of thrones’.”

    Much more interested in real history, and James IV did die at Flodden, never seen game of thrones, not interested in that sort of fantasy, never have been.

  34. Looks like we are at the bit of the choreography where PM flies on a minute to midnight trip to Brussels, harsh words are exchange, knuckles whiten, threats are made and then the deal that was on offer last week is signed and everyone is content that they have got the best they can get.

    Then it’s off to parliament……

  35. @TOH

    not interested in that sort of fantasy, never have been.

    As opposed to the Brexit fantasy?

  36. I wonder what the usual suspects will do to assuage their YAHBOO needs after Brexit is all over?

  37. @alec

    It seems that May had agreed some further assurances on the backstop with the EU on Saturday but reneged on that on Sunday following discussions with Cabinet colleagues. She spoke to Juncker on Sunday night and was relieved that the EU agreed to continue technical discussions. If an agreement is reached tonight on something, it will be interesting to know whether May got backing for the first agreement or has managed to wrangle some further assurances.

  38. Interesting UQ exchanges this afternoon. The UK Government has to table its mv2 motion by 10,30pm tonight and publish the AG’s further legal advice. The Speaker has said tbat he will accept manuscript amendments to the motion tomorrow morning but a lot of unhappiness about how the Government is handling the whole business. Also not clear whether the Cabinet will hav3 endorsed the mv2.

  39. @colin

    “I wonder what the usual suspects will do to assuage their YAHBOO needs after Brexit is all over”

    You mean in about 10 years time?


    Thank you. I am about to return the ball to your court and then I am resting. There are different opinions all about. Here is the link.

    “Jean-Claude Piris, former Legal Counsel of the Council of the EU and
    Director General of its Legal Service, supports the view that leaving the
    EU means leaving the EEA, based on Article 126(1) of the EEA
    agreement: “The UK’s withdrawal from EU will mean an automatic
    cessation of its membership of EEA as an EEA-EU member”.37…

    ….Michael-James Clifton, Chef de Cabinet at the EFTA Court thought, on
    the other hand, that “as a standalone and independent treaty it is
    reasonable that the UK must make an Article 127 EEA notification or be
    in breach of its international obligations”.4….

    …..Carl Baudenbacher, former EFTA Court President, believes that a State
    can only be a party to the EEA Agreement either through membership
    of the EU or through membership of EFTA.

    Section 9(3) and 10 look interesting. But not for the moment.

  41. @ BFR / ALEC – As ALEC just said “because we don’t yet have these facts”

    So why present info as specifically Brexit related “facts”

    So let’s strip down ALEC’s latest mix of info, speculation and nonsense:

    1/ “major capital transfers have occurred” – if you change major to some then agreed

    2/ “that these have been far greater than leavers forecast” – not moi, it’s less than I expected.

    as per the various posts your not reading they are LESS than Remain forecasts (disaggregation issues aside its not the crazy numbers from Project Fear 1.0). Leavers have good memories!

    3/“that these are likely to get bigger” – a little bit perhaps but your article says (under #3 – The Damage is Done), which is why I asked if banks, etc would come back from Dublin if we ended up Remaining (Yes/No).

    4/ “and that job losses will follow” – again some more perhaps but to date a lot of the new jobs in places like Dublin have been duplicate jobs (or UK job has been reallocated). 1 new job in Dublin does not mean 1 less job in London. In your article see #7 “We have identified nearly 5,000 expected staff moves or local hires” (so which is it, moves or local hires? clearly the number of job losses is less than 5,000 though)

    5/ “consistent with some of the more alarming predictions from some remainers” – like 100,000? :-) :-)

    You really do need to reread some of Project Fear 1.0

    You’ll note the number of companies ES mentions and the number of companies in your article. When they talk about “small minority of firms” that’s a bit naughty as the big firms obviously employee by far the largest amount of people.

    Some of the info in their report is useful and totally to be expected but it is clearly biased – just admit it.

  42. @ ALEC – As for your 8:18am

    “the financial sector is responsible for around 6.5% of GDP, so that means we’ve potentially lost just over 0.5% of GDP on a permanent basis already”

    You might want to correct that or remove the skewer from your self ;)

  43. SAM @ BZ

    Since leaving the EEA removes rights from EEA citizens and that A127 makes no reference to EU membership, I’d have thought it only prudent for HMG to send the appropriate letter. The EFTA Court chap seems to agree.

  44. Japanese pharmaceutical firm moves its European HQ from London to the Netherlands:

  45. @Trevors – what bit of ‘potentially’ don’t you understand?

    Nothing more to say to you on this if you can’t be bothered to read and understand – twice.

  46. @Trevors – by the way – your 4.50pm post is complete nonsense. You’ve completely missed the point – but then you know that already, don’t you?

    The study has identified that 10% of city assets have already left the UK. Not threatened to, not Project Fear, not contingent on deal or no deal – already gone.

    Why you are mixing this up with jobs, heaven only knows, although it is worth while pointing out again that this study (from actual data from actual companies) predicts the jobs will follow the money.

    They also believe these transfers are a conservative estimate, and won’t be reversed. The UK is now a less trusted environment with less value for financial firms.

    I did try to advise you this morning that the simplest thing to do is just sometimes accept that the evidence has gone against you on a specific point. No harm done. We all get things wrong sometimes.

    I also predicted that you would throw out all kinds of spurious facts and figures, confuse the point, set up a straw man or twelve, misinterpret stuff, and generally throw as much typeface out there as possible in a standard @trevors attempt to distract. It’s what you do, and it fools no one.

  47. Hireton

    I imagine that Shionogi are really p!ssed off at having been encouraged by the UK to set up their HQ in London in 2012.

    Moving their HQ because the Mayor of London who welcomed them, became one of the principal actors in creating the conditions that have led to this.

    Moving the profits from their EU operations to the Dutch, instead of the UK tax jurisdiction seems an appropriate pair of digits (or the Japanese equivalent) being flourished at the same ex-Mayor.

  48. Just out of meeting with Chief Whip, IDS says there will be statement in Strasbourg at 9pm as well as in Commons – ‘reaching a point’ where there might be agreement and will ‘keep an open mind’ about whether Brexiteers can support it (Kuessenberg)

    If a Minister of the Crown does not assure the House that an agreement with the EU HAS been reached, then the terms of the WA Act for a meaningful decision will not have been met.

    Can. Kicked. Road.

1 36 37 38 39