There was a new YouGov Scottish poll in this morning’s Times. Topline voting intention figures with changes from their last poll in October are:

Westminster: CON 23%(nc), LAB 28%(-2), LD 6%(+1), SNP 36%(-4), GRN 3%(+2)
Holyrood Constituency: CON 26%(+1), LAB 23%(-2), LD 7%(+2), SNP 38%(-4), GRN 3%(+1)
Holyrood Regional: CON 25%(+2), LAB 22%(-2), LD 7%(+1), SNP 32%(-3), GRN 10%(+4)

Since October the October poll the SNP appear to be down a little (though as ever, it is just one poll). Two things of note: in Westminster Labour are in a clear second place, in Holyrood the Conservatives are second, perhaps the difference between voting for Theresa May and voting for Ruth Davison, or perhaps a reflection of the different political realities in the two places (in Holyrood one might vote for the Tories as an effective opposition to the SNP, whereas in Westminster it is a choice of Tory or Labour led government). Secondly, note the 10% score for the Greens in the Holyrood list, a level of support that would likely lead to a significant boost in seats.

The poll also had the regular independence questions (37% YES and 50% NO, with 36% support for holding a second indyref in the next five years), and the leader ratings. Interestingly there was a substantial drop in Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings on doing a good job – down from 53% on October to 40% now. I can’t think of an obvious reason for this – it may just be last October people were answering in relation to Corbyn’s strong performance at the general election and that is now registering less in responses.

Full tabs are here.

193 Responses to “YouGov’s Scottish poll”

1 2 3 4

    I agree. The very difficult challenge for the NHS is that, by it’s nature, it is so large. No matter how you cut the cake in order to make it manageable, it will lead to inconsistencies and apparent injustice.

    If I knew the answer to that one, I wouldn’t be in the job I’m in now!

  2. Daibach (11:28pm) & Seachange (11:48pm)

    I concur with your views on public and private industry employees, having also worked in both areas as well as for myself. When I was younger I relished the piratical cut and thrust of the early IT industry, but I accidentally got a job in the NHS in my fifties. I’m glad I did because I got a bit of a pension, but I was staggered that even though I was winding down I seemed to get through more work than most of my colleagues and on occasions did things that they thought were impossible. They’re not bad people, just rather featherbedded which leads to complacency and lower productivity. There was a rumour that my function at the end (data analysis) was going to be opened up to competition by the time I retired. The general attitude was one of complacency – “They won’t have our experience and expertise”. When I pointed out that private companies would be quite prepared to pay premium salaries to poach key staff they tended to go quiet.

  3. Daibach

    “its just that the accountability is to politicians who don’t have the knowledge or experience to do the job properly.”

    Though friends who have worked in the private sector have said precisely the same thing about their board of directors. Consequently, I’m disinclined to accept that the differences between organisations are primarily about whether they are in the public or private sector (or some form of hybrid). that seems too simplistic an explanation.

  4. Daibach

    “The very difficult challenge for the NHS is that, by it’s nature, it is so large”
    current numbers
    Doesn’t that depend on which aspects of which NHS you are referring to?

    I don’t know the current numbers of NHS employees (or contracted services [1] ) compared with those in education, for example, in Scotland – much less in Wales – but is Health that much bigger than Education?

    Now that so much of education in England appears to have been shifted into the private sector, as they seem to be doing with their NHS as well, things may be different in that polity.

    [1] You were right to point out that, in all four NHS systems of the UK, GPs are contractors to the system – as are dentists, pharmacies and others. It’s not a neat and tidy system anywhere! Scottish GPs have now agreed a different contract with the Scottish Government than applied under the previous UK wide contract, and we’ll see how that works out.

  5. Trevor Warne,
    “Eventually the debtor defaults and at that time the humans at the banks or political positions at the time of the final straw that breaks the camels back take the hit ”

    I think it was PTRP pointing out that US/UK laws prevents a hit being taken by banks? the knock-on of this would seem to be that if the EU wrote off some of its own debt, it would end up making the US/UK preferential debtors who got back all. Worse, if US based entities bought up the debt issued within the EU, they might still be able to demand full repayment. So we get to the situation where EU banks are obliged to take a hit, extreme example they are forced to mark down the debt to 10%, they sell, a US bank shark buys it up at the value of 10%, and then still demands 100% from Greece?

    Sea Change,
    “The costs will rise for Europe if there is no deal”
    Surely the idea of a tobin tax is a very small tax on a large volume of transactions. If this has any effect it will be to reduce the volume of trade. Since it is presumably banks themselves making money dealing in shares, securities, whatever, the net effect will be banks making less money, not real people. I’d make a distinction between real long term owners making money, and traders making money (which ultimately comes out of owner’s share). The effect of the tax might be to weight opportunity back towards investors and away from traders.

    Such a tax might displace trade into adjacent jurisdictions where it doesnt apply, but that is more an issue of persuading a big enough area to adopt it. Such as the whole EU, perhaps. If this happened, it might require some sort of trade wall be created around the EU…and then all of a sudden banks would have to move this kind of busines inside the EU too. The real implication of Brexit is a split on which side of financial walls London lies, but we here have already identified two areas where the EU might wish to legislate different laws which apply to banks operating inside. That implies legally separating the banks operations and a move in more areas than currently being discussed.

    Sea Change,
    “There is no simple turning back the clock here for Paris”
    The French former national bank chief was quoted as supporting the argument there would be little harm to London. However what he said was the clock would be put back. Which of his statements do you believe?

  6. Trevor Warne,
    ” Hopefully Brexit will be the ‘pin’ that bursts our unsustainable current account deficit”

    How? There seems a lot of consensus on here that nothing Brexit related will improve anything. Remainers think it will make the economy worse and deficit fundamentally bigger. Leavers keep making arguments about changing the way we do things, which even though most could be applied while we are members we have failed to do. Leave almost seem to agree with remain, that leaving will force beneficial changes because remain are right about the harm to the economy, which will drive change!

    The problem is that the failings of current policy stem from the self interest of the managing class. This is never going to change. It can only be overridden by democratic forces, and hence we are seeing a resurgence of the labour party. (or revolution, of course, though that tends to simply replace one lot of unequal beneficiaries with another)

    New labour was a response to the success of Thatcherism. Corbyn led return to old labour is a response to the failure of Thatcherism. The system oscillates from one extreme to another because free markets do not work, and the political market is even more rigged than most trading markets.

  7. @DAVWEL

    I can’t see how you can conclude the video piece to which I linked up above is a SNP smear. In SNP baad mood?

    This Labour council organised the setting up a worthless company for the sole reason of suggesting there was real competition in a tender. Inquiry into what had happened was shut down possibly/probably at Ministerial level in Holyrood

  8. @S Thomas – “you have asserted that the “EU” have said that the UK can revoke A50 and remain.”

    I think it’s fairly clear that if the head of the Commission and the head of the Council both say that A50 could be dropped on the same day in exactly the same way, then we can be pretty sure that this has been discussed by the EU27 and approved as part of their negotiating stance.

    I did point out that there remains the chance that the ECJ might put a spanner in the works, but again this is not really relevant if the EU27 leaders are all onside.

    The point is that such a coordinated wooing by key figures in the EU seems unlikely to occur if this hasn’t been thought through. We’re not dealing with the UK government here, where people like Boris say whatever comes to mind.

  9. @ALEC
    “I did point out that there remains the chance that the ECJ might put a spanner in the works, but again this is not really relevant if the EU27 leaders are all onside.”

    If by this you mean that what the CJEU might rule the TEU to mean is ultimately irrelevant when the member states want something else as they can always change it, perhaps.

    If you mean that the CJEU will never impose an interpretation the member states don’t like, there are multiple contrary precedents to that assertion.

    It does feel as though the EUs preferred negotiating position is to assume it is and the UKs is to assume it isn’t. But that’s all they are. Preferred positions taken tor political reasons. We don’t even know if either side believes what they say never mind which is right.

  10. Just to clarify the point being made by @PTRP about the issuance of bonds in UK and US,,,

    UK law does not prohibit the write-off of bond debts; in fact bond write-downs and write-offs happen quite often in respect of UK issued securities.

    UK law does mean that bondholders can sue for damages if bond issuers refuse to honour the bonds; this prevents bond issuers from unilaterally deciding to write-down or write-off bond debt. Instead they need to get the agreement of their bondholders to do so.

    This is forthcoming surprisingly often – bond holders generally aren’t stupid and want to get back the most possible in the long-term, which is often achieved through a restructuring. I’ve worked on a couple of sovereign debt restructurings over the last thirty five years.

    This doesn’t absolutely stop bond issuers defaulting, but it does mean that bond holders would potentially have access to the assets of the bond issuer in UK/US if a UK/US court concluded that the bond issuer did in fact have access to assets that could be used to repay the debt.

    This was used by US vulture funds to prevent Argentina fully restructuring its debt a few years back.

    In the case of Greece I haven’t seen anything that suggests UK law was the main block to restructuring Greek debt – it seemed to be more that the ECB would not countenance it until Greek structural problems (like many Greeks simply not paying tax) were addressed, and the Greek government refusing to properly deal with their problems until a debt restructure was agreed.

    From the outside it seemed blindingly obvious that both needed to happen simultaneously, but there you go…

  11. PeteB

    Many thanks for sharing your private and public-sector work experiences with us. Your comments on your experiences in the NHS seem to mirror those of my son in law who says the management is poor and many of the staff complacent. He works in histo-pathology.

    Having said that there clearly are lots of people (the majority?) in the NHS who are hardworking and very committed.

    I see the Brexit stuff still dominates, same old guff. Roll on 30th March 2019.

  12. “It does feel as though the EUs preferred negotiating position is to assume it is and the UKs is to assume it isn’t.”

    I do find this baffling by the way since an ability to bail out of the process even at the last minute seems an ace in the hole for the UK negotiators as it negates the EUs biggest weapon of the ticking clock. And thus seems an odd thing for the EU to champion and for the UK to deny.

  13. I’m not one to defend a Tory but I don’t get the obsession as to which way May would vote in another in/out Referendum. She voted in and that should simply be accepted. If she voted in again that too should be accepted.

  14. @S Thomas
    ‘.Tories also won and strongly held seats in local elections clearly benefiting from leave support.’

    Hmm, let’s check this out now:
    In all the four seats contested, previously standing parties failed to stand this time (mostly UKIP, but including Labour in Rochford)

    In Newport Pagnell the Tories gained 5% of the 13% previously taken by UKIP, 4% went to Labour and 4% to LDems – so pretty even

    In Bournemouth the contest was complicated by a number of independents, one of whom won, but the vote increase for major parties was Tories +5, LDem +6% and Labour +15%, so Labour performing better here – a resounding endorsement of Corbyn perhaps?

    In Rochford the votes from parties not standing again split Tory +6%, LDems +17%, with LDems holding the seat with a 54% majority. Clearly an endorsement of Remain!

    Only in Bolton did the Tories match your rhetoric, with a gain from Labour, with UKIP’s previous vote of 18% splitting +19% Tory and +3% Labour (with LDems and Greens both down slightly). Not entirely a surprise given Bolton Labour council is facing a big backlash in great part due to an unpopular redevelopment project actually in the ward that as holding the by-election.

    So, regardless of their lack of real predictive value anyway, virtually no backing for your contention of a resurgence of Leave sentiment in Thursday’s by-elections from the actual results then.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good party political broadcast though…

  15. Latest YouGov is up with Labour with a 1 point lead. Polled 16-17th Jan.
    Lab 41%
    Con 40%
    LD 7%
    Other 10%
    May is still seen as best PM with a 5% lead (-1)
    In a week when the flu epidemic took hold NHS drops from 53% to 48% in the important issues. Leaving the EU remains top, unchanged at 60%.
    However Right to leave is back in the lead at 45% compared with wrong to leave at 44%. First lead for leave for a while. ????
    The ICM figures, Polled 12-14th Jan are also up .
    Lab 41%
    Con 40%
    LD 7%
    UKIP 4%
    On questions, May has strong leads on negotiating exit from EU, the Economy, controlling immigration, and on protecting people from threats from home and abroad. Corbyn leads on the NHS and the rest although only a narrow lead on education.
    I would have thought the Tories would be reasonably content at this stage in a Parliament.


    So, regardless of their lack of real predictive value anyway, virtually no backing for your contention of a resurgence of Leave sentiment in Thursday’s by-elections from the actual results then.

    Fair comment, but read my last post. Leave back in the lead in the latest YouGov. :-)

  17. BFR

    1. yes but you dont deal with the new you gov poll on the subject and therefore you dont look at the two things together ;and

    2. the defeatism of labour is amazing. This is a politcal party that used to govern. The question for labour is why it is not at least 5% ahead in the polls with the prospect of a majority government?Why is it losing ?and yet no questions are asked as to why this is so?
    3. I am convinced that the next election will be in 2022 and TM will face up to JC. Labour will have the expectation of victory upon them and the scrutiny that brings. JC will not be the insurgent but have been the likely winner for a number of years.
    4. Are Labour supporters confident that the shadow cabinet is of sufficient quality not to crumble under the heat of a campaign and become figures of fun as per Abbott.?
    5. The dilemna for Labour is that is does or did have sufficient quality to form what passes for decent government these days but most if not all are in exile. If they come out of exile and form a sensible government of the left the mass movement will collapse. You can IMHO have the government or the mass movement but not both. Jezza is going to try to test this theory to destruction. Good luck to him but i think it will come unstuck,
    6. Much as i detest the man just think what TB would be doing to this government now.Well that is wrong because he would have destroyed it by now. It is the good fortune of TM that she finds herself facing the worst opposition in living memory. Jezza only appears to shine because the comparison is with pre election jezza not with any other labour leader.

    some may say that the above is partisan but i am hardly a fan of TM ,Cameron and Osborne.And i do note that those who favour Labour on this site never seem to criticise Jezza and those who favour the SNP never have an ill word for sturgeon. so perhaps being partisan is in the eye of the beholder rather than being an objective criteria.

  18. @ToH

    Yes, agreed.

    Is this because the EU leaders have offered a way back and seemed more malleable (perhaps diminishing the effect of project fear on soft leavers), or because the Mail trumpeted the extra £45m for Calais as proof of French despicability (putting backbone into hard leavers), or because people were reminded that Boris exists, or just somethings else?

    And is the move versus the previous two polls (which is quit positive for Tories/Leave across a range of areas) genuine or MoE?

    All very intriguing…

  19. @S Thomas
    There are no two things to look at together, because you made one of them up.

    I don’t want to be rude, but you do this a lot…

    You are now raising a different series of points; my own perception is that without Corbyn Labour would be without a chunk of the youth/radical vote that would otherwise abstain/vote green, but that a more moderate leader would allow some disgruntled centrist voters to feel safe to switch LDem rather than sticking with the Tories.

    Probably we would see LDems up a few percent but Labour/Tory in roughly the same relative position – due to the number of marginal Tory/LDem seats versus the number of marginal Labour/LDem seats this would increase the risks for the Tories but not help in constructing a Labour majority.

    Just my personal view though…

  20. Re should Labour have a bigger lead?

    If taken as 7-8 months in to a new Government having a small lead is a decent showing. If taken as almost 3 years in to a Tory Government then definitely not – take your pick depending on which tinted glasses you wear.

    FWIW, imo a GE next year (which is possible if not probable) would still be dominated by Brexit and produce a similarly tight result in %age terms with Lab+Con being 80% ish and a 2-4% margin in one or others favour; Scottish seats may well determine largest party.

    If we get to 2022 – well too far ahead to speculate and chances are all 3 UK parties will have different leaders and possible the SNP.

  21. BFR

    Yes it is intreguing. My own view is that lots of talk of new referendums, which the public clearly don’t want (see polling evidence) plus the old EU tactic of “why don’t you change your minds” has irritated a lot of people.

    We will see how it develops ver the next few polls.

  22. @petew – “I do find this baffling by the way since an ability to bail out of the process even at the last minute seems an ace in the hole for the UK negotiators as it negates the EUs biggest weapon of the ticking clock. And thus seems an odd thing for the EU to champion and for the UK to deny.”

    The point is that we don’t know if the UK can bail out without the unanimous support of the EU27. That’s where the ECJ would come in. They would make an independent judgment on this.

    What is being telegraphed to the UK is that the EU27 would support a bailout with no conditions, making the ECJ irrelevant.

    The UK government and Brexiters don’t want this, as is presents a clear choice for the UK, whereas they want to present Brexit as an inevitable done deal.

    The EU want to keep open the bailout option as it greatly strengthens their hand. It removes the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ binary option, adding in a third option of keeping everything like it is. It offers a route out of Brexit for the UK government is they find the leaving terms too difficult and if public support for Brexit wavers.

  23. SC – My key point is that any idea that there is going to be mass de-selections in the LP changing the composition of the PLP, with dozens on current MPs sitting as independents, is a fanciful delusion put about by opponents.

    Corbyn, Lansman, McDonnell & Abbott for example were all around when the SDP broke away and know how damaging a split left can be.

    There focus will be on changing the shape of the PLP over time when retirements occur.

    Some councils be shaken up which may be a good thing in some cases but few MPs if any will be forced out. You may see a few 60 somethings retire at the next GE when they could have re-stood but nothing so brutal as jumping before being pushed.

  24. @ALEC
    “The point is that we don’t know if the UK can bail out without the unanimous support of the EU27”

    No the point is that we don’t know if the Leaver can bail out at all as the Treaty stands. I’ve seen plausible opinions expressed on both. I’ve seen none suggesting there’s a need for unanimity. You’re confusing the extension provision I think.

  25. Alec

    “It removes the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ binary option, ”

    I don’t see that at all Alec. I for one are very much in favour of that option. I think the EU want to keep the “bail out option” because they are really worried. I think it a totally unrealistic option which only die hard Remainers would support.I accept there are plenty of the latter but not enough IMO.

  26. S thomas

    Your post is a pretty fair summary of the received and agreed wisdom within the media/westminster bubble that commentates on these things. Exactly the same agreement existed about Labour being wiped out in June.

    Problem is, the actual voters in the actual General Election. They might just vote for Jezza anyway.

  27. Nick P

    ” Exactly the same agreement existed about Labour being wiped out in June.”

    and was also used about the Tory chances of winning in 2015.

    Everything to play for at the next election IMO. I will be happy if the Tories stay ahead on Best PM and Who is best at running the economy.

  28. Here you go.

    Labour at Westminster under Corbyn is generally pretty poor at the traditional HOC opposition role. Some opposition spokespersons do quite well (Stamer being the obvious one) but the embarrass the Government and force change through argument in Parliament approach through coordinated action is missing by and large.

    However, the Government has been forced to back-track a number of times through the force of campaigns and extra-parliamentary action (within the law) has mushroomed under JCs leadership.

    William Hague regularly bested Blair and it got him no-where and Callaghan often embarrassed Thatcher in the HOC but narrative outside Westminster was too strong at the subsequent GE.

    Many long standing LP members still have reservations about Corbyn and whether he can win but most acknowledge he did well in the 2017 GE and deserves the chance to present his vision at the next GE which may be under a like minded successor if he chooses (and it is his choice if to go before then).

  29. @Peterw – yes, understood. As I understand it, the ECJ does tak account of resolutions passed by the Council, so presumably if everyone wants to scrap A50 there wouldn’t be a legal case to oversee.

    @TOH – yes, I think your reaction was much more how I was expecting the Leave side to react to this, but instead we got the incorrect assumptions of @S Thomas that the EU were wanting us to leave and then rejoin. That was their last resort. The notion of the EU being really worried fits with the Brexiters sense of inflated self importance, and while there will be some impacts on the EU under any leaving scenario, as discussed many times, these are far less in proportionate terms that for the UK. The EU really just wants to get this out of the way and get back to dealing with important things

    There is a fundamental misconception about the Brexit process in the UK, with everyone talking about a ‘negotiation’. It isn’t really anything like a negotiation – it’s about the UK agreeing the terms by which we will be able to access their markets. A negotiation indicates give and take on both sides, but that isn’t what is happening. Rather, we are witnessing a process whereby the UK gradually whittles down it’s unrealistic ambitions and ‘red lines’ until we settle on a solution that fits with the EU terms as laid out eighteen months ago. As far as they are concerned this is a major waste of time, which is why they would be happy to scrap this.

  30. Alec

    Very predictable response from you.You seem to have been taken in by all the Remainer propoganda. We shall see how we exit and how we perform as a nation when we have done so. I fills me with excitment and I find it difficult to wait. We are at very different places on this and time will show who is the more correct.

    Have a good afternoon, much Rugby to watch now.

  31. Latest YouGov tabs here:

    Right to Leave 45 (+3)
    Wrong to Leave 44 (-2)
    DK 12 (uc)

    and that is the ‘hindsight’ question!

    One poll, etc, etc. its just MOE noise IMHO but certainly suggest there is no ‘trend’ for Remain even with the new LAB voters bumping up the Remain vote.

  32. Nickp

    But Labour lost in 2017.What I am saying is that we are still judging labour by the pre2017 election position and not by the 1997 standard. I agree that if Labour is content with close but no cigar then carry on but do not expect to win a majority.

    I am sure lots of people will vote for jezza but will there be enough in the right places.

  33. @ DANNY – Default: Argentina, etc all ‘defaulted’ on their debt – call it restructuring if you want to nit-pick. The broader term ‘default’ includes significant restructuring after discussions between creditors and debtors that significantly reduces the amount to be repaid (e.g. only paying back 30% of the face value via switching to new bonds). The Troika could have very easily said to Greece that they would swap old bonds for new bonds with a 70% haircut (ie only needing to pay back 30%). Instead Greek’s debt is now 180% of its GDP having risen from 100% since before the crisis (ie almost double!). Germany however is almost back to its pre crisis level of around 65% (ie Future generations of Greek people have 3x the debt to pay back compared to German people).
    After the ‘restructuring’ Argentinas economy grew rapidly. Free from the $ currency peg they could also fix their current account by being more competitive and the lower debt payments meant they weren’t just sending huge cheques to the creditors anymore.

    Current Account: larger exports and/or lower imports = lower current account deficit. A weaker currency helps, tariffs would also help on the import side – happy to have a discussion about ‘imperfect’ competition and why IMHO the lions share of a tariff would be born by the exporter not the importing side consumer (we see this already via the currency move – did German car companies hike UK prices by 20%?? No – they took the hit on their profit margin and in order to stay competitive in a WTO scenario I expect they would largely do the same but it would certainly encourage more domestic manufacturing despite was the foreign owners of SMMT lobby group companies pretend). Y’day I forgot to add the benefit of tariffs to my list of economic reasons to leave EU – apologies for understating the reasons to leave.

  34. I don’t put much value in local elections but if anything the low turnout tends to encourage a protest vote against the govt so mildly interesting that of the 4 last week 3 were holds (one each for LDEM, Ind and CON) and CON took one from LAB.

  35. @TOH – “You seem to have been taken in by all the Remainer propoganda.”

    Not really. I just read the summaries of what’s making the news on the continent and what their politicians are discussing, and discover that Brexit really doesn’t feature that much.

  36. s thomas

    “I am sure lots of people will vote for jezza but will there be enough in the right places.”


  37. I think I’m right in saying a 3% swing from Con to Lab will give Lab more than 50 more seats.

  38. @ NICKP- more like 30 assuming UNS, but as S THOMAS stated much depends on WHERE the extra votes are coming from. In the last GE LAB took most of the uni town seats that they didn’t already have (only 2 obvious ones left, although new graduate farms pop up from time to time).

    Vote stacking in safe seats doesn’t win GEs.

    On current polling we’d probably have a hung parliament with CON and LAB on roughly the same number of seats with SNP as kingmakers demanding some fairly strong terms for a C+S relationship – although I would expect Corbyn would try and go it alone.

    Anyway, no GE in sight and a lot could change between now and then. We’d have left the EU for starters!

  39. NickP: We should not forget that in the next GE, it is not just Tory-Lab swing that will play but also SNP-Lab.

    I believe a 3.5% swing from SNP to Labour will give Labour 20 extra seats.

  40. In the sense of an anti-Tory majority at Westminster whether a seat is Lab or SNP is unimportant.

    Whether Lab or Cons have most seats is important in the context of havng credibility trying to rule as a minority, requiring C&S or even a full blown coalition.

    Also more SLAB MPs than SNP would make a minority rather than a C&S more probably in my view with the ‘dare you’ challenge in the background.

  41. @PeterW @Alec

    There is an interesting report for the AFCO Committee of the European Parliament, published this month:

    This sets out the cases for A50 being unilaterally revocable or irrevocable (or revocable only with the agreement of the other member states). The final sentence of the conclusions is:

    “For this purpose, a hypothetical right of revocation could only be examined and confirmed or infirmed by the EU institution competent to this purpose, namely the CJEU.”

    Some other countries in the EU may not want it to be decided by the CJEU as this would create a precedent for countries using A50 in future to leave the EU, while not involving the CJEU would leave it undetermined. This could be a reason for offering an agreed revocation of A50 with the aim of tidying this clause up in a future treaty.

  42. ToH talks of the nation, then he tells us he is watching the rugby, presumably he means rugby union.

    I am surprised he hasn`t registered that that sport has a competition called the Six Nations.

    Then is he talking about England when he says “the nation” or the UK? In which case it is deliberately offensive to ignore the other three.

  43. where have the new thread monitors all gone??

1 2 3 4