Sunday polls

Opinium’s latest voting intention figures are CON 41%(+2), LAB 43%(-2), LDEM 5%(nc), UKIP 5%(nc). Theresa May’s net job approval stands at minus 21, Jeremy Corbyn’s at plus 4 (though May has regained a small lead on who people think would make the better Prime Minister, 36% to Corbyn’s 33%).

Asked about Theresa May’s future, a third of people think she should resign straight away, 16% think she should go after Brexit negotiations are complete, 8% just before the next general election and 22% that she should remain and fight the next general election. Answers to this are heavily partisan, as you might expect: a hefty majority of Labour voters would like May to go now, only 9% of Tory voters. 62% of Tory voters would like her to remain PM until either shortly before the election (14%) or to fight the election (48%). Tabs for the Opinium poll are here.

There was also a Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday with topline figures of CON 39%(nc), LAB 41%(-4), LD 8%(+1), UKIP 6%(+2). Changes are since Survation’s last online poll in mid-June, rather than their last telephone poll which showed a small Tory lead. Theresa May also still leads as best PM here, 43% to Corbyn’s 35%.

Survation also asked questions about Theresa May’s future, though their’s was a simpler should she stay or go question.45% would like her to resign, 40% would like her to stay. Again, responses are overwhelmingly split down partisan lines: 77% of Lab voters would like her to go, 78% of Tory voters would like her to stay). Asked about who should succeed her if she did go, Boris Johnson leads on 22% ahead of David Davis on 15%. 46% of people say don’t know. Questions like this don’t give us that much insight because of low public awareness of the options. The most interesting ones there asked who people would prefer in run offs between two potential leaders – between Davis and Johnson Davis wins by 36% to Johnson’s 30%. Paired against Philip Hammond Johnson only just wins, 34% to 33%, though he beats Amber Rudd by 38% to 27%. There are still lots of don’t knows, but I’m conscious that a few years ago Johnson’s popularity and celebrity would probably have seen him easily winning all three questions at a trot. The shine looks as if it may have come off Boris Johnson. Tabs for the Survation poll are here.

Finally there was a BMG poll in the Independent asking about the public sector pay cap. Questions like this are tricky – most people have huge sympathy for “frontline” public sector workers like nurses and firefighters, so the social desirability bias towards saying you’d pay a little more to give them a rise is huge (it’s what we tend to call a “drowning puppy” question in the office, as in “would you pay more tax to save this drowning puppy?”). If anything, I’m surprised only 56% said they’d be willing to pay more in tax to fund a pay rise above 1% for only occupations like firefighters, police officers, paramedics and nurses. More generally, 69% of people said the public sector pay cap should end, but asked if they’d be willing to pay more tax to give a rise to “non-emergency” occupations the split was pretty even, 42% said they would, 41% would not..

Opinium also asked about the public sector pay cap in their poll. 53% of people support ending it, 21% of people would be opposed. They also asked about it on specific jobs. Questions like this are, to some degree, just reflections of how popular or valued a role is (as well as how well paid people think it currently is). Almost 70% of people wanted the pay cap ended for nurses, 60% or more for the armed forces, police and fire service. Teachers was 56%, followed by doctors on 53%. For dentists it was only 38%. I’m intrigued about what Opinium would have found if they’d asked about less obviously sympathetic public sector jobs: local government planning officers perhaps, benefit assessors, immigration officers, refuse collectors, traffic engineers, taxmen…

480 Responses to “Sunday polls”

1 7 8 9 10
  1. Just listening to the national anthems at the women’s footy.

    Why [oh why] do England have such a rubbish anthem?

    Scotland’s brought tears to my eyes, it’s fantastic and, like the Welsh, even football crowds sing it in time. Unlike God Save [etc] which sounds like they’re involved in a group race to the finish.

  2. @ ToH

    Interesting. I wonder if perceptions of the historical trajectory of European destiny have played a significant role in decisions about remain vs leave?

    For example, if people ultimately assume Europe must or will come together in (some kind of) union in the future, then it stands to reason they may have voted or be inclined towards remain based on that sense of inevitability and the desire to forge the type of union that emerges.

    Conversely, if they believe we can remain independent forever (despite, say, ongoing globalisation processes), perhaps that accounts for (or reinforces) some proportion of the confidence felt by leavers.

  3. All IMO of course :-)

  4. @ TonyBTG

    In some ways I share your sense of the inevitability of globalisation and the need to come together to resolve the ensuing processes and issues – which are far bigger than the nation state.

    I reluctantly accepted the argument that we need to remain and reform the EU rather than leave, although I have a lot of sympathy for many of the views of Leavers, and share some of their anxieties as well.

    I do wish the farcical Brexit campaign had discussed these complex and multi-dimensional issues in a nuanced and less passionate way. We’ve been having the wrong discussions about the EU and European unity, IMO, and it’s causing irreparable damage to the UK as a result.

  5. There is another post from Dr Katy Hayward on qpol. Dr Hayward wrote an earlier blog post on the difficulties of a “frictionless” and “invisible” NI/ Ireland border to which I linked up above. Her new post sets out in detail the difficulties posed by the current approach of HMG in dealing with the flow of goods across the border. This piece should better inform some.

    “If the UK government is aiming for a singular, UK customs regime (which would be the most obvious approach), it looks as though the flexibility and imagination regarding the EU’s external customs boundary will have to be
    found in the execution as well as the design of the system itself.

    The mechanisms that will be used to manage the Irish customs border must benefit from the application of cutting-edge technologies, applied in support of risk-assessed, intelligence-led schemes of control. These will not, however, negate the need for some measure of physical control and examination if the integrity of both the UK market and the Single Market is to be protected. At this early stage, the smooth facilitation of legitimate cross-border trade on the island should be a priority. It is vital that businesses that currently rely on movement across the Irish border have the capacity to manage this transition and to achieve compliance with the rules in both regimes. This will require the provision of clear information, advice and support tailored to their needs. The current uncertainty that pervades the business community on both sides of the Irish border raises the risk of deep economic harm in this area, long before any formal change to the status of the Irish border takes place.”

  6. SSSimon

    With the huge increases in world population likely in the next 100-200 years I would think there would be little or no chance of there being any economic or social cohesion of states or borders by then ,having been a farmer for the last 35 yrs the chances of us producing enough food to feed that size of population is next to impossible I would think by then people will look back at this era as the golden age even if we don’t see it that way ourselves

  7. Turk

    It very much depends on your perspective. For what group of people is our current time a golden age? Is it a golden age of western capitalism? A golden age of the enlightenment? A golden age of liberalism? Whether it’s a golden age or not depends on what people view as being important at the time. We could argue that it’s not a golden age of free thought – since the majority of the worlds population probably live in repressive states.

    It makes an interesting conversation topic to muse over what, if anything, our era will be remembered for as a golden age of in, say, 250 years time.


    I am afraid I disagree with every word in that last post of yours except the last sentence.but rather than have a fruitless argument I am happy to let history decide which one of us is correct.

    “We’re stronger when we work with others.”

    That is often true, but it’s perfectly possible to do that as a sovereign state which is what i want. IMO of course.

  9. Mars is likely to be a ‘Satellite’ Earth in 150 years or so with people emigrating for a better life in much the same way people left for America or Australia !

  10. “With the huge increases in world population likely in the next 100-200 years I would think there would be little or no chance of there being any economic or social cohesion of states or borders by then ,having been a farmer for the last 35 yrs the chances of us producing enough food to feed that size of population is next to impossible I would think by then people will look back at this era as the golden age even if we don’t see it that way ourselves”


    Yeah but, in a hundred years time when we have nanofactories and stuff…

  11. From the Irish Times comes a business article which suggests Brexit is already having an effect.

    “Mr Toland said that Dublin Airport’s passenger numbers were up 6 per cent so far this year. “What that’s really disguising is the fact that inbound trips from the UK are down 7 per cent and falling like a stone,” he added.
    “So our good performance, in outbound, as the Irish economy picks up, as North American, Middle Eastern and European business works well, is disguising the fact that there is already a Brexit-related decline.”
    He explained that 42 per cent of tourists and 44 per cent of business travellers visiting the Republic come from Britain.”

  12. TOH

    “but it’s perfectly possible to do that as a sovereign state”

    Which is exactly what we are now.

    We are a sovereign state that has entered into a mutually beneficial club where compromises have to be made to gain an overall benefit.

    We win some arguments, and we lose some arguments. But the overall effect over time is that we ALL win.

    It’s the irrational fear of having to compromise some things in order for us all to be something better that annoys me most about the Leave mentality.

    I say no more now. The deed is done. For good or ill.

    Time, as you say, will tell.

  13. End of human race? Not for a bit it appears.

  14. TOH

    “Would you go along with that?”

    LOL – nice one.

    Ok but not while Trump is in charge :-)

  15. David Colby: “I find it incredible that someone who is a passionate as you clearly are could be so misinformed. Are you just having a laugh perhaps?”

    You don’t specify in what way you think I’m misinformed. However, assuming you take issue with my distinction between free movement of people, and free movement of labour (or workers), can I direct you to:

    Here’s an extract:

    For the first three months, every EU citizen has the right to reside on the territory of another EU country with no conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. For longer periods, the host Member State may require a citizen to register his or her presence within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.

    Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence.

  16. TOH

    “it’s perfectly possible to do that as a sovereign state”

    One of the things that causes endless confusion in constitutional issues is that old problem of semantics – people use the same word to mean different things.

    Every US state is a “sovereign state”, in that they have their own sovereignty – the Federal Government cannot force their decisions on matters reserved to the state.

    Of course, their sovereignty is limited, not pooled any more. They cannot declare themselves dependent of Federal control on some matters – the last states to try that were invaded and conquered!

    The devolved nations in the UK have no sovereignty of any kind. Even in the devolved matters, the UK Parliament/Government can exercise any power they wish anywhere in the UK.

    All the states that are members of the UN are “sovereign” – regardless of any arrangements that they have made with one or more states to pool aspects of their sovereignty. They are free to withdraw from such arrangements.

    You (and others) seem to use “sovereign” in a different way from these common usages.

    I may have misunderstood you, though I don’t remember your explaining what you mean by “sovereign”.

    I get the impression that the term is primarily an emotional one for many on your side, and lacks any clear definition of whatever unique status that you think the UK would have if it was “sovereign” – and how that would be any different from the sovereignty it already enjoys.

    As I understand it, you want to remain subject to the UN Conventions (in as much as any state is) : you are happy to remain in NATO and other international organisations (even North Korea is a member of the Universal Postal Union).

    I’m not criticising whatever your understanding of being “sovereign” is – just trying to understand it.

  17. S THOMAS
    You must be reading a different blog to the rest of us. It’s about 50/50 remain to leavers. Very civil on both sides IMO of course.
    Bismarck used to eat 12 boiled eggs a day, don’t know if he had chips with them or not.

  18. WB,
    “It appears to me that compromise is not possible between those at the extreme ends of the debate. I consider that TOH is at the extreme Brexit end in that he essentially wants no connection with Europe (other than trade as with other nations). There are others at the extreme remain end who continue to hope that the Brexit process will be halted. Belonging to the EEA would be anathema to both extremes.”

    I dont really agree with that. If what you mean is a strict interpretation of any kind of continued membership of any part of the the EU is unacceptable to extreme leave, then I agree, by definition no compromise is possible. Because compromise must lie in remaining part of the EU to some degree.

    But I think all the polling evidence is that remainers are far more willing to compromise with regard to partial membership. Remainers were mostly motivated by a belief in the negative economic impact of brexit, not the ideological desire to be europeans. Most Leavers either thought Brexit would be positive for the economy or neutral.

    However. last poll posted had 2:1 against a hard Brexit, which suggests national views have shifted against a belief that leaving would be economically neutral or indeed beneficial.

    The other Howard,
    “By accepting the result of the referendum, gettig behind the government and supporting then in their attempt to leave with a good deal”

    It cannot be done Howard. Even our negotiators know that or they would by now have published their plan. May could easily have won the election, simply by explaining what would constitute a good deal and how it could be got. Instead she said we would have to trick the EU into a deal so could not reveal the cunning plan. They do not believe it can be done. Its obvious.

  19. Oldnat (re TOH): “I’m not criticising whatever your understanding of being “sovereign” is – just trying to understand it.”

    Sadly, attempts to get people to explain what they mean, or justify their professed beliefs, are liable to be interpreting as “picking upon” the person from whom you are seeking elucidation.

    However, for what it’s worth, I suspect the popular interpretation of ‘sovereignty’ that you’re seeking is probably along the lines of, “the freedom to do what you want as a country without anyone being able to say, ‘you can’t do that’ “. Hence the apparently visceral dislike of the ECJ.

    However, as you’ve pointed out, all countries’ freedom of action is constrained in some ways. In our case, not least by our effective subservience to the USA (as we discovered at Suez).

    ‘Sovereignty’ isn’t the only word that seems to have acquired an extra layer of meaning; ‘vassal’ is another.

  20. Somerjohn

    ” the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence.”

    Those are precisely the barriers that the UK has recently enforced to deny the spouses/children of legitimate UK residents to remain.

    If people don’t have every single bit of paperwork to support their claim to remain, then they are told to prepare to leave – even though HMG will actually have the required evidence already.

    In one sense, every EU citizen residing in a different country should have been (made) aware of the rules, and have no complaint that they lost that single month’s payslip or bank statement.

    In another sense, the UK is morally culpable for not having bothered to require such things in the past, and only to rigidly enforce the rules after the Brexit decision.

    Perhaps, instead of the incessant whining about the excessive number of migrants from the EU, the UK had created a Border Agency fit for purpose, and ensured that those who did not meet the criteria were asked to leave after 3 months, we wouldn’t be in this ludicrous situation.

  21. One of the issues in the Brexit debate that puts me off as it’s vacuous – the notion of national interest. I don’t think it can be disputed that we love in a class society, different classes will be effected in a different way and to a different degree and it will be made more complicated by demographic factors.

    Both sides are guilty in this, although i think Brexit will have truly awful effects on the toiling strata.

    That the same strata voted for Brexit is quite irrelevant. In 1914 the French toilets sewed the Gallic Rooster, and the Germans the imperial eagle in the red flag. And then paid for it.

  22. The state of the world in two hundred years time IS something I am willing to predict: there will be no more footy, no more telly – and no more people. Dinosaurs will roam the earth.

    Talking of footy, England [despite rotten anthem] beat Scotland 6-0 and – amazingly for women’s football** – all six goals were exceptionally good.

    ** I enjoy it but it obviously doesn’t have the same level of development as the men’s game, due – surprise, surprise – to the sexist attitude of men since…. well…. the first age of the dinosaurs I suppose.

    On Sunday I shall be supporting Scotland against Portugal – they need a win.

  23. Toilets Lazlo ?

  24. How much I dislike autocorrect …

    Love – love
    Toilets – toilers.

  25. Somerjohn

    I like “vassal”!

    I’ve been binge-watching David Tennant as the Doctor, and the series is dominated by the attempts of all kinds of aliens to reduce Earthlings to being vassals.

    In one episode, they even had Torchwood hoping to recreate the British Empire – so I blame Russell Davies as the Brexit creator – EXTERMINATE!

  26. Laszlo

    To be fair, autocorrect can also reveal a deeper truth –

    “we love in a class society” is evidentially correct (even among those who “like a bit of rough”).

  27. RJW
    Toilets Lazlo ?

    Autocorrect for POILUS, I suspect.

  28. I’ve seen the ECHR mentioned a few times so maybe some background may help.

    The ECHR is the epitome of Britishness — it is the result of Britan telling the rest of Europe that you should be civilised, like us. The ECHR comes out of the Council of Europe ( That organisation was created by the 1950 Treaty of London, where we said to the rest of (war-ravaged) Europe that co-operation was the way forward. It was drawn up by British laywers. It was, if you like, Britain’s gift to Europe. Abolishing the death penalty was a key aim. It has been staggeringly successful in that aim. All members have to ultimately agree to it.

    Remember this is at the time when Britain still thought it was a world power; it pre-dates Suez in 1956 when we finally discovered we weren’t. To pull out of the ECHR would be, frankly, childish. What sort of signal does that send to everyone else? Human rights, which the organisation champions, would be seriously diminished. Oh look, the country that said it wanted everyone else to conform it its high standard of human rights now doesn’t care about human rights in Europe. It just wants to turn its back.

    Well if the Brits can pull out we in Russia will do the same. No one will hold us to account. Yes, pulling out of the ECHR can be done, but it really misses the point of what it is there for, and will significantly reduce any influence Britain has in the rest of the world.

    I thought the Brexiters were all about Britain standing tall and being a beacon of civilisation; how a country should be run. Yet they want to pull out of the ECHR and take with it all the influence we have been able to show to others.

    I hope that those in power do not heed such requests. If we are to be an important influence in the world it is precisely organisations such as the CoE that we need to promote.

    I really don’t want to squabble about brexit, but despite the recent scramble to insert the words ‘worker’ into as many documents as possible to muddy the waters and to create an imaginary class of ‘European immigrant’ to further obfuscate things, freedom of movement within Europe is as absolute as it is between the U.K. and Ireland and anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed.

    There are restrictions for the new member states, but legally, a German does not have to get/have/look for a job to live in France. All they have to do is get on a train or in their car and move. You don’t have to apply for the right to retire in Spain, or study in Italy, or busk on the street in Paris. I live in Germany, if I move apartments in Düsseldorf I also have three months to register my new address. That’s a red herring. In the U.K. you wouldn’t even have to do that.
    I’m not expressing an opinion about this by the way, it’s just a fact.

  30. David Colby

    ” I live in Germany”

    Good for you – but presumably you have applied to become a German citizen?

  31. @Oldnat

    I like ‘vassal’ too. Lovely old word that I like to think I first came across in Latin readers. Or was it the King James bible? But more probably just in early history lessons about feudallism.

    As for ‘vassal state’, the few examples Wiki comes up with include Moldavia and Wallachia under the Ottoman empire, which also lorded it over the the Crimean Khanate. Also – who’d have thought it? – Troy under the Hittites. So now we know how TOH sees our current position. Theresa as Helen?


    @”We’re stronger when we work with others.”

    Absolutely agree.

    But without having to join the Monetary , Fiscal & Political Union which the EU will become.

  33. Somerjohn

    “Theresa as Helen?”

    The face that launched a couple of aircraft carriers – but with nothing to launch. :-(

    Still, as the proverb has it “There’s no such thing as a free launch”.

  34. @David Colby

    You have described the relaxed interpretation which most EU member states put upon the free movement of labour; they have for the most part been happy to interpret it as the free movement of EU citizens. I have described the actual legal position.

    It’s a bit like me saying” the maximum speed limit in this country is 70mph.” And you saying: “but that’s ridiculous, I drive at 80 on the motorway and so does everyone else. The police don’t mind. You are sadly misinformed.”

  35. Markw

    It’s a point of view I suppose but I don’t see how or why the population will not continue to expand expediently people have often debated how we will cope with feeding that size of population some think technology is the answer and GM foods have shown much promise but personally I don’t think technology will ever keep up ,the problem is the west doesn’t take food production seriously enough as it uses its wealth to by food from around the world to the detriment of many third world populations. The UK already imports 40% of its food that can only grow as our population increases if an alien visited our planet in the future to find no humans just the ruins of our endeavours I think they would come to the conclusion we disappeared not because of some natural disaster but because of our inherent stupidity in believing technology would save us.

  36. I have a question. How is it right that we can say to Northern Ireland hey you have to accept the rule of Westminster, because you are not capable of ruling yourselves, but wrong to say we will not accept the rule of the ECJ even though we are clearly incapable of ruling ourselves?

  37. Old at

    Yes, and we came THAT close…

    If only we could learn to spend less time explaining what is going to happen next and more time exterminating we would have had him by now. If only it hadn’t been for those pesky kids, sorry, assistants, and timelords/timeladies

  38. Turk: “the west doesn’t take food production seriously enough”

    I’ve got an idea. Why doesn’t a group of rich countries get together to run their agricultural systems collectively? Then each country can produce what it does most efficiently – beef and dairy from one, olives and grapes from another, pork and bacon from a third. Hmm, what could we call it? How about “Common Agricultural Policy.”?

    Europe is collectively self-sufficient in food, with food production broadly in line with consumption. Its farmers can generally make a decent living, and its citizens enjoy abundant, varied and high quality food. Environmental and animal welfare standards are higher than almost everywhere else. But let’s leave all that behind , junk our farmers and throw ourselves onto the vagaries of world markets, eh?

  39. The recent discussions on sovereignty here strike me as bizarre, to put it mildly, since there are only three people in the UK who have any: Brenda with a tiny bit plus whoever has a majority in the Westminster HoC plus Arlene Foster with an unmeasurable amount. As British subjects, us hoi polloi have none worth mentioning.

    No nation, city or town within the UK has as much sovereignty as every Swiss Commune has.

    A case in point is Canton Jura, which was created when a number of francophone communes in the Bernese Jura split from Canton Bern in the 1970s. They were all mainly catholic communes, and a number of mainly protestant communes narrowly voted to stick with [then] mainly protestant Bern.

    In the intervening years, Moutier Commune has had 3 referendums which narrowly supported remaining in Canton Bern. On this year’s June [1] voting day, Moutier voted to join Canton Jura instead, there being 51.7% of the relevant electorate in favour. Joining should be complete by the end of 2017.

    Few, if any, Swiss Cantons are contiguous, so there is no geographical issue, but in 2018 Canton Jura will be collecting somewhat more tax and Canton Bern somewhat less.

    The EU referendum in the 5 polities could and should have been organised by Council ward, so that those wards which wished to leave the EU could do so whilst the rest could have got on with their lives.

    [1] The Swiss Confederation assigns four Sundays per year to all forms of Communal, Cantonal and Federal voting as appropriate.

  40. LASZLO

    POILUS would have been much more apposite – the French equivalent of the British PBI [Poor Bloody Infantry].

    You clearly need a francophone autocorrect! ;<)}

  41. Barbazensero

    “As British subjects, us hoi polloi have none worth mentioning.”

    I still have only surmise to guide me as to what TOH and his friends (which, bizarrely, seems to include all parties in England and the UK parties elsewhere) think of as “sovereignty”.

    I’m happy to be corrected, if I’m mistaken, but what they regard as “sovereignty” is their absolute right to have a vote to elect representatives to select the principal adviser to Brenda (who will do as her adviser says) – but only while a majority of their elected representatives judge that it is in the best interests of the state to allow them to have a measure of choice as to who their representatives should be.

    It may be that the naïve, trusting beliefs of the English electorate encouraged the Dr Who scriptwriters to try to persuade them of the dangers they were opening themselves to.

    Indeed, that the reformed Torchwood, which saved the Earth on multiple occasions, is based in Cardiff may be symptomatic.

    BBC funding for major series moving to Wales may be more than book-keeping sleight of hand, but a plot by the few remaining humans in the BBC (those on minimum wage or less) to prevent Chris Evans identifying himself as the Exterminating Dalek!

    Have a look at some earlier work rather than documents produced in 2017 and designed to re-interpret the law to fit the politics.
    If a Dutch citizen were deported from France for being unemployed and were to take the matter to court, the French would lose the case.
    Treaties trump cobbled-together study papers and press releases and it was theTreaty of Maastricht which introduced the notion of EU CITIZENSHIP to be granted AUTOMATICALLY to every national of every Member State. It is this EU citizenship that underpins the right of persons to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The Lisbon Treaty confirmed this right.

    Here’s the law as it stands:

    EU citizens can only be expelled from a Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are NOT taken on economic grounds.

    I’ve been blessed with automatic British/German citizenship; saved by ‘Jus Sanguinis’ on the one hand and by a Hanoverian five-times great grandfather on the other.
    wink :)

  43. Somerjohn

    “Then each country can produce what it does most efficiently ”

    Well, the reason for not being able to do this: it’s not a technical question as long as we have the structure of landownership, and ownership in the supply chain as these are today.

    The 19th century “experiment” on efficiency driven production allocation didn’t work out very well within the given landownership and market conditions in Ireland and Northern England.

  44. OLDNAT

    I would agree entirely with your detailed explanation of the UK Constitution had you added that even if allowed to vote the voting system was made even worse in 1872 via secret ballots.

    I can’t comment on Dr. Who or Torchwood as I have never watched either, but I was surprised at your mention of Russell Davies. Is that the same person who presents Round Britain Quiz on Radio 4?

  45. I see the Americans have found an imaginative solution to the student debt problem…..

    They lost the paperwork! Ha ha ha, no records no debt?


    Here’s the law as it stands:
    EU citizens can only be expelled from a Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are NOT taken on economic grounds.

    On the Europa website’s Your EU spouse and children the specific rights and requirements for workers, pensioners and students and their families are spelt out very clearly and they are very specific on the rights of families.

    I think SOMERJOHN used a difference source, but his original post is correct as it stands.

    Anyone can visit another member state for up to three months without formalities. Any worker, pensioner or student can remain longer than three months provided they meet the conditions listed [in short they must have adequate funds or be working].

    The rules on leaving and deportation are also very clear – under Request to leave and deportation:

    Your spouse, children and grandchildren may live in your host country with you as long as they continue to meet the conditions for residence. If they no longer do so, the national authorities may require them to leave.

    In exceptional cases, your host country can decide to deport them on grounds of public policy or public security – but only if it can prove they represent a serious threat.

    The deportation decision or request to leave must be given to them in writing. It must state all the reasons for deportation, and specify how they can appeal and by when.

    What was your source for “the law as it stands”?

    I suppose we all see what we choose to see really. You think it’s ‘spelt out very clearly’ on the Europa website. Well that’s interesting because that’s my source too and I don’t think it’s clear at all. What does ‘meeting the conditions of residence’ even mean? European citizenship was enshrined in the treaty of Maastricht, now everyone is scrambling to backtrack and pretending it’s only about work.

    Unlike the Europa site SOMMERJOHN was very clear, he said that ‘if no work has been found after 3 months, the host government can eject the job seekers’. They can’t.

  48. David Colby: “Unlike the Europa site SOMMERJOHN was very clear, he said …”

    If you recall, I was originally encouraged into a response by your, “I find it incredible that someone who is a(s) passionate as you clearly are could be so misinformed. Are you just having a laugh perhaps?”

    So I justified my view by reference to the European Parliament factsheet on the matter at:

    After the quote I used, this factsheet goes on to a lengthy discussion of ECJ case law, which kicks off with:

    “Since the introduction of EU citizenship, the CoJ has extended access to social benefits for EU citizens residing in another Member State (Cases C-184/99 Grzelczyk, C-224/98 D’Hoop). The status of first-time job seekers is currently the subject of intense discussion, as they do not have a worker status to retain. ”

    When you get down to the level of argument amongst judges as to the interpretation of something, then I think to call someone “sadly misinformed” for accepting what an official EP document says, is a bit harsh. You may have a different interpretation from mine, but I don’t think I lack information. Or to assuage my hurt pride more directly, I’m not as wet behind the ears as you appear to think!

  49. S Thomas

    It is a wonder the TOH posts here. This has become a self validation site for a group of bitter remainers. The funny thing is that they only pick on TOH because everybody else has given up on them.

    Don’t worry about me I find it all very amusing. There are one or two Remainers I respect like Charles, who is, I think, genuinely seeking answers, but most of the rest, especially those who talk about facts when actually they are talking about their opinions are just a hoot. I think you arer correct, they are attempting to bolster themselves as doubts set in, and they see the UK leaving their beloved EU.

    The more they drone on the funnier I think they are.
    Clearly my posts get under their skin, look at the stuff about my use of vassal state, it clearly so obviously true that it really irritates them. If I didn’t think it all so funny, I would either ignore them or not post at all. Why they keep on leading with their chins I really don’t know, they bring endless amusement.

    Rather than get into a long and fruitless discussion when I am quite sure you know exactly what I mean, for now I am happy for you to understand it means a state that is not in the EU, which of course is exactly what I want.

    It cannot be done Howard.
    Nonsense, of course it can be done if the EU is prepared to be reasonable. If not then we will leave with no deal.

  50. @TURK

    Take a look at this, from the sadly now departed Hans Rosling

1 7 8 9 10