There are five polls with fieldwork conducted at least partially since the weekend – I don’t know if there are more to come overnight (I think there may be at least one more. ComRes and Survation have both polled during the campaign, but I don’t know if either are doing a final call):

Panelbase (14th-21st May) – BREX 30%, LAB 25%, LDEM 15%, CON 12%, GRN 7%, ChUK 3%, UKIP 3% (tabs
Kantar (14th-21st May) – BREX 27%, LAB 24%, LDEM 15%, CON 13%, GRN 8%, ChUK 5%, UKIP 4% (tabs)
Opinium (17th-20th May) – BREX 38%, LAB 17%, LDEM 15%, CON 12%, GRN 7%, ChUK 3%, UKIP 2%
YouGov (19th-21st May) – BREX 37%, LAB 13%, LDEM 19%, CON 7%, GRN 12%, ChUK 4%, UKIP 3% (tabs)
BMG (20th-22nd May) – BREX 35%, LAB 18%, LDEM 17%, CON 12%, GRN 8%, ChUK 4%, UKIP 2% (tabs

The broad story across the polls is the same – the Brexit party are ahead, Conservative support has utterly collapsed, the Lib Dems are doing well in the mid-to-high teens, and both Change UK and UKIP have failed to shine. There is more variation in the detail, and particularly in how well or badly Labour are doing. Kantar and Panelbase have them not far behind the Brexit party; Opinium and BMG have them down in the teens, YouGov have them below the Liberal Democrats in third place.

This isn’t an election like 2017 when pollsters took very different approaches and the differences are easy to explain. The polling companies aren’t taking radically different approaches – there are some differences in turnout modelling (BMG and Opinium, for example, are taking only those most certain to vote, which will be boosting the Brexit party and Lib Dems), Kantar are estimating the likely vote who say don’t know based on their demographics and answers to other questions, which explains their comparative low figure for the Brexit party (they’d be on 31% otherwise). And don’t overlook simple things like when the fieldwork was conducted – all the polls have been showing a downwards trend in Labour support, so it may not be co-incidence that the polls from Panelbase & Kantar whose earliest fieldwork is over a week old have higher support for Labour.

The bottom line however is that this is a tricky election. Firstly, turnout for European elections is normally low (and one of the problems with polls in recent years is getting too many of the sort of people who vote, and not enough of those who don’t bother). Secondly, most polling companies rely on some degree to weighting by past general election vote to make sure their samples are representative, as how people voted at previous elections normally correlates pretty well with their current vote. An election like this, when an awful lot of people are not voting for the party that they voted for at the last election, will make those techniques less effective. We shall see on Sunday.

In the meantime, several people have asked me about exit polls tomorrow. There won’t be any. The big, offical BBC/ITV/Sky exit poll is only conducted at general elections anyway, but even if they wanted to, they couldn’t do one tomorrow. For the European elections the rules that ban the publication of exit polls until after polls close apply across Europe, so it wouldn’t be legal to public any exit poll until the polls have closed everywhere in the European Union… and some countries won’t finish voting until Sunday night.


1,788 Responses to “European Election polls”

1 33 34 35 36
  1. @ TW

    It’s a long time since I’ve been to Streatham so there will be more knowledgeable people out there as to any demographic changes but I’d be amazed if Ummuna had any luck there as a Lib Dem- especially with local Labour party being remainy anyway. I think he was as much out of place there as Hoey was in Vauxhall and even she got back comfortably. It would help if I could find EU election results for Lambeth but I can’t!

    @ BFR

    All those ones you quote are pre coalition and any residual came from personal votes for long serving MPs. I think Lib Dems in working class areas will struggle because of a) coalition and b) remain stance for many (not all) of those areas. Where the Lib Dems will do best is LD/Tory middle class areas.

  2. Jim Jam
    “Emily Thornberry’s back-ground was free school meals and a council estate after her father left her mother.”

    How odd that she’s such a snob then. Remember her posting a picture of a St George’s flag on a house with a white van on the drive?
    ————————
    David Carrod
    “… if Scotland is ever foolish enough to believe they can survive outside the Union.”

    Of course they’d survive. They might be a bit poorer, but they might not. Some things are more important than economics.

  3. David Carrod

    I think you have made the elementary mistake of assuming that I was promoting a conspiracy theory, when I was lumping it in with the fallacy that is Danny’s.

    Given that fact, the rest of your diatribe is (to say the least) utterly pointless, and irrelevant.

  4. @Shevii
    Southwark had a very high Remain vote, and Haringey and Withington weren’t shabby either, so I don’t think the LDems’ Remain stance will be a problem in these areas.

    Southwark is a challenge without Simon Hughes, but neither the Withington or Hornsey MPs had large personal votes AFAIK.

    I agree middle class areas are going to be the preponderant LDem targets, but there will be a few viable Labour targets too.

  5. @CIM

    “The catch is it would probably take at least three days rather than one to do it, so there might not always be time depending on exactly what happens.”

    We’re in uncharted waters here but it’s by no means clear that the VoNC/ VoC strategy could be done that quickly.

    The FTPA gives a fourteen day period for the passing of a VoC in a Government. But it gives no guidance as to how that Government should be formed and by whom. Or whether it even needs to be a different Government. How much of that fourteen days should be allowed to the PM to try to form another administration? Or get a VoC in the current one? None of it? All of it? Some of it? How much to the Leader of the Opposition?

    The HoC can’t pass a formal FTPA VoC in another Government until there is another Government. How does it install one in a day? A series of indicative votes on hypothetical Governments it might possibly have confidence in? We know how well that can go.

    Uncharted waters.

  6. @ CIM – Good analysis of the “gap” that I’ve posted before shows LDEM already “owned” new Party A (where ChUK had hoped to be and n4ively thought they could “do a Macron”).

    BXP have taken over from the now “too toxic” UKIP (new Party B successfully replacing the dead one there).

    The challenge for both parties is to make current voters “stick” and nibble further into the CON and LAB zones.

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MIND-THE-GAPS-LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-APRIL-2019.pdf

    @ BFR – I assume you’re joking – good one :-) :-)

    I’ll share a joke with you then. Here’s Electoral Calculus on Portsmouth South:

    Tribe: Kind Yuppies

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Portsmouth%20South

    I guess LAB did take a lot of the “kind yuppies” seats in 2017 (this one from CON who took it from you in 2015).

    Certainly a “marginal” seat but appealing to “kind yuppies” is a fairly limited market in terms of E+W seats. If CON, LAB, LDEM and Green want to fight for that segment and leave others wide open then fine by me ;)

  7. PeterW,

    I think you are barking up the wrong tree with the FTPA. That regulates general elections, not who is PM. The PM is appointed by HM and that has not changed.

    What I think the HoC needs to do to change the PM (and cabinet) is demonstrate no confidence in the government by a motion that does *not* conform to the FTPA. Then HM will sack the PM and appoint a new PM that is likely to have the confidence of the house.

    Obviously no-one should start out on this if there isn’t a viable alternative coalition waiting to take over.

  8. hugo: the peoples will must be enacted.

    … said all the Daleks on Skaro, with feeling.

  9. Really can’t see how we can justify revoke in isolation. We’ve had a referendum, not binding, but nonetheless, everyone said they would accept the result, so MPs voting to revoke simply to limit damage to their own parties would not, in my view, be acceptable.

    However, I would back a ‘revoke and reset’ approach, so long as we have a genuine attempt to craft an acceptable leaving strategy that can command sufficiently broad support. This will have to mean acceptance in a second referendum, at some point, but to get to that point we first need to do what May should have done in 2016, which would be to hold genuine consultations across all constituent parts of the UK, going beyond politicians and narrow partisan interests, to create a leaving proposition acceptable to as many people as possible. We can’t do this against the ticking clock, so we first revoke, on the basis that we need time to develop the Brexit offer.

    Then, we test this with the public, and if accepted, we proceed to reactivate A50, tick off the WA and then get the agreed leaving deal negotiated within the two years.

    Of course, this would be more delay, possibly three years more, but who cares? May has wasted the last three years, so we have no real choice but to reset the clock again and have another go. getting this right is so much more important that getting it quick.

  10. Alec,

    Nice plan, but what’s to stop people agreeing a “leaving proposition” that isn’t possible? After all, that’s all most leavers have been doing so far. We don’t even know if May’s deal would be on offer from the EU if A50 was triggered again.

    What’s needed now is a decision: May’s deal, no deal or revoke.

  11. Looking further at it, it’s an overused phrase but the VoNC/ VoC strategy is genuinely into Constitutional Crisis territory.

    We haven’t been there yet. We’ve had some situations where the conventional niceties have been ignored. A Government that simply ignores and doesn’t even try to defeat HoC motions it doesn’t like. An activist speaker reacting by digging into precedent to resurrect or invent procedures that will bind it.

    Unusual yes, undesirable maybe, but no doubt in the first case that the Government and in teh second case the Speaker were within the scope of their strict legal powers.

    A real constitutional crisis arises when the powers are so unclear that neither side can prevail without recourse to an essentially political decision from the Monarch. The VoNC/ VoC strategy is such a crisis. It is not clear that a PM who loses a FTPA VoNC goes anywhere. It is not clear when or how a new PM should emerge. It is clear that the HoC can’t as such appoint one. That remains a prerogative act. With the Quuen’s ministers advising X, and the HoC advising Y. The nightmare scenario.

  12. HAL

    Possibly, but Labour tabled such a motion in December last year and the Government successfully argued that it wasn’t required to give it time for debate. Which would be a problem in a last week crisis scenario.

  13. ALCE
    “Really can’t see how we can justify revoke in isolation. We’ve had a referendum, not binding, but nonetheless, everyone said they would accept the result, so MPs voting to revoke simply to limit damage to their own parties would not, in my view, be acceptable.”

    What about doing so to limit damage to the country, on the basis that they can’t be trusted not to b… up the referendum campaign again?

  14. peterw: A real constitutional crisis arises when the powers are so unclear that neither side can prevail without recourse to an essentially political decision from the Monarch. The VoNC/ VoC strategy is such a crisis. It is not clear that a PM who loses a FTPA VoNC goes anywhere. It is not clear when or how a new PM should emerge. It is clear that the HoC can’t as such appoint one. That remains a prerogative act. With the Quuen’s ministers advising X, and the HoC advising Y. The nightmare scenario.

    The Crown should go with X, the HoC can then VoNC X.

    Ministers propose X1, the Crown appoints, HoC VoNC’s X1

    Continue while X1 not equal to Y.

    Maybe there is a problem with the FTPA doing it this way, but that could be suspended.

  15. It does look like we are heading for a very messy / interesting general election once the new PM loses their commons majority by advocating No Deal.

    Corbyn is determined to pursue his “better brexit” plan, so we can rule Labour out of the remain alliance. He will be wrestling with Con and Brx for leave voters, which means a lot of remain-oriented Labour seats will be in big trouble. Whether those MPs go to the knackers yard quietly is another matter.

    Since Brx are in politics for the long run, they are not going to stand aside for Con in many places. I can see them giving their ERG pals a free run but not anyone else. It suggests Con are in trouble too, so in many places it will be question of just how much Lab and Con collapse.

    LD, Greens and PC are in for gains assuming they can stand aside for each other, though getting their local parties to cooperate in that is going to be very difficult (particularly the Greens have local autonomy).

    The Alliance look set for modest gains in NI. Scotland already has nationalists in pole position, so the appeal of a second bunch appears to be very limited.

  16. OLDNAT:
    “I think you have made the elementary mistake of assuming that I was promoting a conspiracy theory, when I was lumping it in with the fallacy that is Danny’s.
    Given that fact, the rest of your diatribe is (to say the least) utterly pointless, and irrelevant.”

    No, you have made the elementary mistake of assuming that I thought it was your theory, when I fully realised that you were pointing out the fallacy of Danny’s posting. I was simply dismissing the theory, as indeed you did in different words.

    But to describe perfectly valid questions as a ‘diatribe’, and dismissing it as ‘utterly pointless and irrelevant’, appears to be a disingenuous attempt to avoid engaging in debate, and out of character for a usually erudite poster such as yourself.

  17. “JIM JAM
    Hugo – Emily Thornberry’s back-ground was free school meals and a council estate after her father left her mother.”

    I don’t think facts will get you anywhere with him JJ – kick em all out if they step out of line is the answer apparently.

    Eventually we will be left with just Corbyn, Lavery and Milne [oh!
    plus ole Hugo – unless he’s unhappy with something one of them said as well.]

    Purity is everything.

  18. PeterW,

    If the government lose their majority, then they can’t timetable business in the House. So the new majority would assert itself by timetabling a no-confidence motion in the government.

  19. Hugo

    You want all those liberals expelled.

    Now we know that Corbyn is a nationalist radical – ok, forgivable in a social democratic party, but now that we know that he is also an ardent supporter of a supporter of Steve Bannon (that’s Galloway’s new career path), and he rejoiced for Labour’s losing an election – shouldn”t he be be expelled?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/185542633056239616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&fbclid=IwAR0yXPuW1nXLNmdNZRZoluYJCBsqYIQe0pdVyafGt_IKBhTOHEP6YJjmwcs

  20. @Laszlo

    And Corbyn has already rowed back on the second referendum:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/30/soft-brexit-corbyn-labour-second-referendum-some-way-off-backs

    so his email to the plp didn’t last long in representing the Labour leadership’s policy.

  21. David Carrod

    Had your purpose actually just been to agree with me that the idea of the Conservatives in England was to exclude the Scottish and NI polities from their rUK, then you could have ended your comment after your second sentence.

    Some might consider that pointing to the historical name of the party was a somewhat trite justification, but that is of no import.

    The remainder of your comment beginning with “But, let’s suppose wee Nicola got her wish” and ending ” if Scotland is ever foolish enough to believe they can survive outside the Union” remains utterly irrelevant to the discussion that was taking place.

    Introducing other matters into a debate is not uncommon, but when they are irrelevant to that debate, it is reasonable to describe them as such.

    I grant you that, from your perspective, they weren’t pointless. You wanted to indulge in a partisan Unionist rant, and succeeded in so doing.

    As to the two questions that you raise between your starting and ending dismissive points, both have been answered many times – on here and elsewhere. You have obviously missed them.

    Should you wish to ask them again, in a more reasonable fashion, I’ll be happy to answer.

  22. -unlike a lot on here, Jeremy is a Democrat and respects the referendum result.
    The wishy washy Blairite centrist creed has no place in the modern Labour party which once again is first and foremost a party for the ordinary people, not city types and corporations in hoc to the internationalist capitalist cabal that is the EÙ.

  23. Any self respecting democratic socialist would see that the corporations control the EU and that Tusk and Juncker do their bidding.

  24. 41% of ‘ordinary people’ party members voted for someone other than labour in the euro elections, 34% of those for either green or libdem.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/05/30/if-everyone-revealed-how-they-voted-last-week-labo

    and 59% of tory members voted brexit party. Slightly surprised that one isn’t higher!

  25. @ SHEVII – Lewisham Local Authority EP result:

    BXP 9,117
    CON 2,641
    LAB 19,965
    LDEM 21,581

    UKIP 1,099
    Green 15,444
    ChUK 4,514

    All the LA data:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19QT5Hddz6W8ex4juQHAOv9tZdP5lWb8foJ4_atT8J-M/edit#gid=1331867871

    However, Steatham comes under Lambeth LA which LDEM scored even higher in[1] although Chris Hanretty’s split gave LAB the most votes in Steatham:

    UKIP 822
    BRX 6,436
    CON 2,009
    LAB 8,734
    LDEM 3,598
    ChUK 675
    Green 3,853

    Hanretty’s constituency splits[1]

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G_zdsUdYjvZKOCm1F_cE4vuTI6KKXNMwMQE_z8-ZiWg/edit#gid=99882377

    [1] For seats where he can access ward level data then he rebuilds the constituencies up from there (ie should be accurate). In some places he makes inspired guesses on splitting wards out or splitting LA data down. Some of his splits in Scotland look wrong IMHO (Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow being pretty obviously wrong).

    I’m not 100% convinced his London splits are 100% accurate but at a quick glance they look OK

    As I’m sure you know London has some pretty “rich” (kind yuppie) areas mixed in with “poor” areas (often with higher BAME) – I’m aware need to be very careful with “labels” and some folks don’t enjoy a bit of banter.

    Sometimes the “posh-white”/”poor-BAME” areas can be in same seat and that is certainly the case in the larger LA groups (eg “posh-white” Dulwich is also part of Lambeth LA and is more likely to be LDEM versus “poor-BAME” Steatham being more likely to be LAB – which we see in Hanretty’s spreadsheet)

    IMHO Hoey (Vauxhall, just to the West) kept her seat and kept it very comfortably as Corbyn made the GE’17 election about anti-austerity and despite LDEM’s best efforts to portray Hoey as Farage’s mistress (big adverts the lot) they failed in 2017.

  26. hugo: Any self respecting democratic socialist would see that the corporations control the EU and that Tusk and Juncker do their bidding.

    Laughable. brexit will deliver the UK into the hands of those corporations …

  27. @ PETERW / CIM- Agree FPTP route2 is “unchartered waters” but Remain have Captain Bercow at the wheel to ensure he guides HoC to the Remain option (ie Revoke instead of No Deal and then we have a GE as HoC is so totally and utterly divided and unable to agree anything beyond the panic hitting of the revoke button)

    It might play out differently and certainly chance of a 3rd extension to kick the can once again but my base case assumes:

    1/ New CON leader will try to reopen the WA (over Summer into early Autumn)

    2/ EC-EU27 will not reopen the WA

    3/ HoC are unable to find a stable majority for the current WA (and new “executive” are effectively in minority with “No WA” as Plan B)

    4/ Facing choice of No Deal or Revoke then Bercow finds a way to ensure we Revoke (possibly after another extension which in itself might collapse govt as new CON leader might have promised he/she will not ask for a new extension and this one actually keeps to their word)

    Great discussion with CIM and yourself on these matters. The future is uncertain but some things are more/less certain than others (eg new CON leader+PM being the one who writes the su!cide note to Tusk seems v.unlikely IMHO – unless they want to avoid a split CON/BXP Leave vote with every other party (including CON) being Remain in order to ensure Farage becomes PM perhaps? aka the DANNY DYER plan!)

  28. For the 100th time – we can’t Revoke A50 with stated purpose of buying time to have a 2nd ref

    “The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council”

    https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180191en.pdf

    If MPs (beyond Umunna’s failed attempt to be more “Remainy” than LDEM) think they can Revoke A50 with new ref as the stated plan then I’d be very happy to see them give that a go – just make sure no Brexiteer has their finger prints anywhere near the pen that writes that letter ;)

  29. TURK

    Caught an interview on Sky News here in UK-Adam Boulton with Rory Stewart.

    I have to say he was a breath of fresh air in terms of straightforward answers.

    On Brexit-he said anyone who says they can get a different deal with EU now is “selling snake oil”-whoever they are.

    His idea is a Citizens Jury with experts to go through the WA & PD vs No Deal & make a choice.The whole thing to take 3 weeks & be on live national TV. He said this device was successful in resolving the very divisive abortion issue in RoI. He stuck to his guns under questioning. I suppose this is halfway to Ref2-but with the added information & data………he said most MPs hadn’t a clue what was in the WA !!

    A very interesting chap. If Gove gets it I would like to see Stewart in a senior post in his Cabinet.

  30. @ DAVID CARROD – I’m certainly not looking to defend SNP or Indy2 however from what I understand their “plan” is to ensure we sort out all the details before we split (debt, currency, trade access, etc)

    There is no equivalent to the 2yr deadline of A50. Hence there is no equivalent to crashing out with No Deal.

    IMHO we should simply have a “Tartan Divorce” and avoid the whole divisive ref issue anyway. If talks became “open” they’d get very messy very quickly (currency, debt, Faslane, etc)

    If Holyrood wants independence we copy the “Velvet Divorce” of Czechoslovakia.

    SNP has also created an “issue” over “confirmatory refs” which a “Tartan Divorce” would avoid – with no Indy2 ref there would be no need for a “confirmatory ref” to ensure having seen Indy Scots still wanted it.

    Holyrood can run parallel talks with EU about how they rejoin EU (possibly EFTA/EEA to begin with). There problem not rUK’s. They’ll have to make some trade access decisions as if they fully rejoin EU then we’d have to treat them exactly the same as whatever deal we have with EU (including on FoM, etc as no CTA currently exists). Again, there problem, not rUKs.

    Compared to the clusterbùrach of Brexit negotiations then I hope at some point the GB wide parties work out that Scotland is economic and political baggage (some minor geo-strategic value) and agree a “Tartan Divorce”

    If Scotland (via their elected representatives in Holyrood) want to Leave UK, let them Leave – simples ;)

  31. HAL

    I thought you wanted to table a no confidence motion in the PM personally. There’s no timetabling issue with a no-confidence motion in the government. So long as the Opposition puts it down it takes precedence. And if the Opposition doesn’t it ain’t passing anyway.

  32. @Passtherockplease – “As I remember there were lots of people that were rather happy about the red lines indeed there was very little desent regarding the red lines at the time. it was the reason why I said we would leave without a deal because of those very red lines.

    May did not set up those red lines alone indeed her Lancaster House speech and her Florence speech was debated in cabinet. I believe that you are pretty much doing a revisionist history.”

    Not quite sure what to say here, other than you are completely wrong and guilty of gross revisionism yourself.

    May’s red lines were greeted with lots of adverse comment and much anger within remain circles. Your memory fails you here. Even many leavers were worried that she was adopting an unrealistic tone.

    I also wonder where you have any evidence about Lancaster House and Florence speeches being debated in cabinet.

    Indeed, the actual evidence points entirely the other way: it wasn’t until Chequers in July 2018 that the cabinet had a serious discussion over Brexit and the preferred outcome and process. Most commentators take the view that Brexit has been managed within No 10 by a very small and tight knit clique around May, and that cabinet discussion was extremely limited in these earlier stages.

  33. Colin

    I’m neither for or against Rory Stewart as Tory leader, but as a fan of John Buchan’s Hannay novels, I’m struck by the parallels between Stewart’s life choices and that of Sandy Arbuthnot (or perhaps Aubrey Herbert, on whom the Arbuthnot character was based).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_Herbert

    An Anglo-Scot Brit who can be equally at home in fashionable London salons, with primitive Cumbrians using binder twine as a fashion accessory, or in a Persian opium den does have a certain early 20th century appeal to the true Imperialist. :-)

  34. I have to say, I’m a bit confused by some arguments. Corbyn wants to nationalise a sizeable proportion of the English (don’t tell him that he can’t do most of the things that he promised in the other three counteies) economy, that is giving it to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

    I’m actually neither for not against nationalisation, it is really irrelevant – control matters and the goals. Still, I’m surprised that that the nationalist radical masquerading apparently as a democratic socialist didn’t remember something called co-operatives – you know with voting rights to all employees, customers, suppliers and alike.

  35. Is Corbyn trying to split the Leave vote and leave the Lib Dems with a clear run at the Remain vote?

    I can see The Lib Dems polling better and better if he carries on equivocating.

    Colin, I remember not being able to get my apology for my language past moderation, If you can remember what it was, please accept that I’m generally very positive about people, whatever their seniority!

  36. @ TW

    Thanks for the Hanretty spreadhseet- fascinating reading. Are you sure you got Streatham right though- arguing against my theory but it looks to me like LD did in fact “win” this on his figures?

    Also there does appear to be a bit of an Ummuna effect because Chuk seems to be showing up at 8% (but only if I am reading it right!). He’d be the only one- a few other Chuk are a little bit above UNS but not by much.

    As I say I am not up to date on London demographics. It doesn’t have to be “gentrification” for an area to change a bit if people are desperate for housing… any housing within their price range and that can inject a potentially liberal element into a traditional BAME Labour working class environment. But I could imagine that BAME working class in London may not be that different to white working class in Wigan with deteriorating turnout among younger voters and not changing that pattern in later life.

  37. @TW

    Definitely agree about 1) and 2)

    Corbyn sounds like he wants to change the PD, which the EU are certainly open to.

    Providing that Corbyn hasn’t used up all his Supply days as opposition leader he can request a VoNC, which Bercow will allow (it was because he had none left that there was the fuss last December). Thinking back to 1979, there was IIRC a SNP request for a VoNC that was overtaken by Thatcher’s request once she knew that the Liberals would also vote for it. So in principle the VoNC could come from another Party but as it would need Labour backing it makes no difference.

    My favourite outcome is the VoNC passes, Parliament tells the Queen that they want Bercow as PM (through the Privy Council). Bercow receives a VoC from the Commons with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair. The Commons then authorises Bercow to revoke Article 50 and once this has been done and the House has elected a new Speaker, we can all move to a General Election.

    ISTM that a GE will be necessary, not least to force the Parties to be unambiguous about what they want from Brexit. For the SNP, LD, PC and Greens this is straightforward. The Tories may very well come out as no-deal Brexiteers and some Tories may stand on a manifesto of supporting Party policy except over Brexit; we may see a similar split in the Labour Party.

    I don’t think a 2nd referendum will cut it at this point, simply because if whatever the voters decide cannot get a majority in the House then it cannot be enacted as we have already seen.

  38. “COLIN
    Oh my gawd !!!!!!!!

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1134151393764360192

    Blimey, yes: a surprise to see the two main parties holding up so well.

  39. Interesting electorate for the Tory leader!

    According to YG – 59% of them voted BxP last week, 9% didn’t vote, 8% voted for other parties – and only 19% voted Tory.

    And Labour should expel 41% of its membership.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/05/30/if-everyone-revealed-how-they-voted-last-week-labo?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=party_members_EU_parl_vote

  40. HUGO

    You are a member of the Rees-Moggy clan, your full name is

    Hugo Romulus Remus Septus Trollus t’Wattus “Nobby” Rees-Mogg

    and I claim my five guineas.

    ps On the other hand, if you’re real, I look forward to your being the sole, uncorrupted member of the grouping formerly known as “the Labour Party”.

  41. @LeftieLiberal

    “And Corbyn has already rowed back on the second referendum:”

    Yes, probably had some Frank conversations with his Northern, Midlands and Welsh MPs.

    What London wants isn’t what the Regions want.

  42. Metropolitan elite fight back. Remain voters consolidate finally.

    James Melville

    Times/YouGov are reportedly about to publish this Westminster voting intention poll:

    LIB DEM 24%
    BREXIT 22%
    LAB 19%
    CON 19%

    Lab/ Cons – increasingly irrelevant.

  43. Rory Stewart’s (anti-imperialist) book ‘the places in between’ is riveting.

  44. @Colin

    “Oh my gawd !!!!!!!!”

    Wow! Just wow!

    We really are in uncharted territory but I laugh out loud that Labour are still neck and neck with the Tories!

  45. COLIN

    As a non Tory I too have found Rory Stewart to be a breath of fresh air. At least he is a thinker and coming up with ideas that are not all about short term populist gain.

    He won’t win the leadership race but is raising his profile and could be a standard bearer for moderate Tories going forward.

  46. @r&d
    “Blimey, yes: a surprise to see the two main parties holding up so well.”

    Members, not voters, some explanation in yougovs write up I linked to further up

    Leaked ge poll could be very interesting. And that’s before Corbyn’s tone deaf speech today…

  47. @Trevors – “For the 100th time – we can’t Revoke A50 with stated purpose of buying time to have a 2nd ref ”

    Yes we can.

    There is nothing to stop us revoking A50 for whatever reason we like. The ECJ ruling was very clear on this.

    There then follows the issue of under what circumstances would a resubmission of A50 be permissible. On this, no judgement was given.

    In the opinion of the ECJ Advocate General, there would need to be a substantive change of circumstance, such as a general election or a new referendum, which would then meet the test to allow A50 to be triggered again. In this way, a member state couldn’t just trigger and withdraw, and re-trigger.

    Indeed, democracy dictates that a fresh triggering of A50 must be allowed, otherwise the logical end point of what you are saying is that each member state only has once chance to use A50, and then any future option for using it is lost.

    There is a question over exactly what would need to be done to ensure there couldn’t be a successful legal challenge to the re triggering of A50 in the circumstances I outlined, but I strongly suspect that the development of a coherent leave plan, accepting the WA but forming the future desired arrangements, backed up by a new referendum supporting such a plan, would meet any legal test under A50.

    This is basically what the Advocate general said, although to be fair, the boundaries of this have not been tested, either in the AG’s or the full courts rulings.

  48. @ Colin

    I agree Rory Stewart seems like an excellent candidate, and he’s not the only one, eg James Cleverly maybe. However, even if they got through to the member’s vote, I can’t see any way they could win a vote amongst a group of people who voted 59% for Nigel Farage last week. It’s a bit of a shame really.

1 33 34 35 36