Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
In a way it's all moot, nobody is going to push rejoin in 2024 and it would be a massive mistake to do so. The unpleasantness is still too raw and recent.
However, we were told that the threat of freedom of movement, Schengen and paying in to the Eurobudget would be enough to keep us out. Whilst they have an effect (and I'm sure that the currency thing would as well) it's surprisingly small. Surprising to me, anyway.
I think it is a mistake on all sides for people to underestimate the link between the popularity or otherwise of the Government/current issues and the Brexit/Rejoin question. I obviously stand to be wrong but I would predict that after a couple of years of the Tories being out of Government and things improving (I hope) under Starmer, that the dissatisfaction with our position outside the EU would ease. All the more so if Starmer does some of the sensible, non ideological things that are available to him to improve relations with the EU. This is why I have no great fears about the UK rejoining the EU any time soon. Starmer is not daft enough to try it yet and the longer he leaves it the less likely it is to happen.
A logical post and I hope you are right. I have to say I don't have a lot of confidence in Starter's team. I hope I am proved wrong
Just 3% lead for Rejoin then if it is pointed out that means joining Schengen and free movement restored. That is even assuming we kept our Eurozone opt out
This is like the Yes Prime Minister episode where they slant the question to get the answer they want (see question which has a lot more in it than the extract you have given) and still rejoin leads. I have to say I'm surprised by that.
You're assuming that people have both understood and accepted the premise of the question, of course.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
In a way it's all moot, nobody is going to push rejoin in 2024 and it would be a massive mistake to do so. The unpleasantness is still too raw and recent.
However, we were told that the threat of freedom of movement, Schengen and paying in to the Eurobudget would be enough to keep us out. Whilst they have an effect (and I'm sure that the currency thing would as well) it's surprisingly small. Surprising to me, anyway.
I think it is a mistake on all sides for people to underestimate the link between the popularity or otherwise of the Government/current issues and the Brexit/Rejoin question. I obviously stand to be wrong but I would predict that after a couple of years of the Tories being out of Government and things improving (I hope) under Starmer, that the dissatisfaction with our position outside the EU would ease. All the more so if Starmer does some of the sensible, non ideological things that are available to him to improve relations with the EU. This is why I have no great fears about the UK rejoining the EU any time soon. Starmer is not daft enough to try it yet and the longer he leaves it the less likely it is to happen.
I largely agree. I think rejoining is unlikely in my lifetime. A much closer relationship, including at least an element of FoM, seems pretty inevitable.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
They had their fingers burned when Greece fudged its way into the euro. There's no way they'll be repeating that mistake with the UK.
Really frustrating that the cold weather isn't mentioned once. Every time there's a cold spell, we get more deaths. It's not rocket science to look at the historic data.
You do understand that excess deaths means deaths over the number expected? And that if there's more deaths every cold spell, then excess deaths now means deaths over the number you'd expect to get in a cold spell? This isn't, as you say, rocket science.
No, that's not right. They're talking about excess deaths over the average number in that week over the last five years - it doesn't control for weather at all.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
One observation I would make about "the long term" and the Euro... My daughter, at age 9, has zero attachment to "the pound" - she doesn't have any physical currency (she has a kid's card from Rooster), and all her spending is done using numbers.
So, leaving aside economics (which are of course a vital part of the debate) I suspect that in 10-15 years time, there will be a whole generation who have no visceral connection to "the pound". And that will take a lot of the sting out of the emotional side of the argument.
I disagree. It is not actually about 'the pound'. It is about control of ones economy. People are not as dumb as many try to paint them and they get that argument.
As I say - the economics are a vital part of the debate. But the economics are inevitably coloured by the emotional - we are neither dumb, yet nor are we robotic decision machines. Those emotions are central to how we assess risk. Does this feel "we" or "not we"?
The argument that a cashless society takes the emotion out of it cuts both ways given that fostering a sense of "we" was one of the main points of the Euro.
New YouGov just published … Labour 48 Tory 24 LibDems 9 Reform 8 Greens 6 SNP 4 Polling conducted 4th and 5th January
That and Techne's almost identical results suggest that Sunak's speech (which as I said here I thought was quite good) had no effect.
If I were a Red Wall Tory in particular I would put some serious thought into either defection or a new career. Even standing as a sitting Tory in a marginal Northern seat feels like a waste of energy.
I defer to your greater wisdom of how this all works Nick, but I’d have thought for some especially ambitious ones it would help to go down fighting and then casting around for a winnable (hopefully) seat in 2028/2029 or whenever the next election comes?
The sad thing about the Tories’ disastrous parliament is that a lot of the new Northern MPs who genuinely had something different to bring to the table and could have articulated a new generation of conservatism are just going to be swept away. They could have been the future leaders and I would hope that they are able to stay in and help reshape the party in opposition, whatever role they occupy
I dunno about wisdom! But getting hammered in an election is generally a worse recommendation for reselection than doing something else and (maybe) coming back later. It's different from being a first-time candidate - everyone respects you for that regardless of the outcome. But losing badly in a swing against *you* doesn't look good.
Which is of course an upside for many voters - if there is a big swing against the government - in this case the Tories - a fair few MPs in normally safe seats will be swept away, affording those seats the chance to pick someone fresh. While no-one would object to the odd talented individual finding a new seat, if the election sweeps away a lot of the time-serving dross, no-one is going to complain either.
Really frustrating that the cold weather isn't mentioned once. Every time there's a cold spell, we get more deaths. It's not rocket science to look at the historic data.
You do understand that excess deaths means deaths over the number expected? And that if there's more deaths every cold spell, then excess deaths now means deaths over the number you'd expect to get in a cold spell? This isn't, as you say, rocket science.
No, that's not right. They're talking about excess deaths over the average number in that week over the last five years - it doesn't control for weather at all.
That doesn't explain the "30,000 more deaths than expected in the past six months" though.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
Really frustrating that the cold weather isn't mentioned once. Every time there's a cold spell, we get more deaths. It's not rocket science to look at the historic data.
You do understand that excess deaths means deaths over the number expected? And that if there's more deaths every cold spell, then excess deaths now means deaths over the number you'd expect to get in a cold spell? This isn't, as you say, rocket science.
No, that's not right. They're talking about excess deaths over the average number in that week over the last five years - it doesn't control for weather at all.
That doesn't explain the "30,000 more deaths than expected in the past six months" though.
Well, no. Fucking up society and the health system by shutting everything down for months in a futile attempt to control a virus does that.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
One observation I would make about "the long term" and the Euro... My daughter, at age 9, has zero attachment to "the pound" - she doesn't have any physical currency (she has a kid's card from Rooster), and all her spending is done using numbers.
So, leaving aside economics (which are of course a vital part of the debate) I suspect that in 10-15 years time, there will be a whole generation who have no visceral connection to "the pound". And that will take a lot of the sting out of the emotional side of the argument.
I disagree. It is not actually about 'the pound'. It is about control of ones economy. People are not as dumb as many try to paint them and they get that argument.
Yes. Most people get that a currency area (with its own treasury, parliament, economic and fiscal policy and central bank) is a critical unit of authority.
The fact that people in the UK distrust all such bodies including their own (BoE, Treasury, MPs, Parliament, Government) does not mean there is any chance of them not preferring their own to the one which links in all these ways under a unifying unelected authority Lithuania, Italy, Croatia and assorted randomers like France.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
One observation I would make about "the long term" and the Euro... My daughter, at age 9, has zero attachment to "the pound" - she doesn't have any physical currency (she has a kid's card from Rooster), and all her spending is done using numbers.
So, leaving aside economics (which are of course a vital part of the debate) I suspect that in 10-15 years time, there will be a whole generation who have no visceral connection to "the pound". And that will take a lot of the sting out of the emotional side of the argument.
I disagree. It is not actually about 'the pound'. It is about control of ones economy. People are not as dumb as many try to paint them and they get that argument.
As I say - the economics are a vital part of the debate. But the economics are inevitably coloured by the emotional - we are neither dumb, yet nor are we robotic decision machines. Those emotions are central to how we assess risk. Does this feel "we" or "not we"?
The argument that a cashless society takes the emotion out of it cuts both ways given that fostering a sense of "we" was one of the main points of the Euro.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
Just 3% lead for Rejoin then if it is pointed out that means joining Schengen and free movement restored. That is even assuming we kept our Eurozone opt out
This is like the Yes Prime Minister episode where they slant the question to get the answer they want (see question which has a lot more in it than the extract you have given) and still rejoin leads. I have to say I'm surprised by that.
You're assuming that people have both understood and accepted the premise of the question, of course.
No I'm not. It clearly wasn't deliberately slanted, but just a list of what it means. Statistically when you compare the response to a straight question with one that has a list of commitments to it (often even if positive) the former will give a more positive result unless you give a similar list to the alternative. This results unintended or intended bias (as per Yes Minister). The person answering doesn't have to understand or accept the premise of the question. In fact that is the point, they don't or are at least mislead by it looking like a list of negatives. The question has to be balanced by a list on both sides.
Just 3% lead for Rejoin then if it is pointed out that means joining Schengen and free movement restored. That is even assuming we kept our Eurozone opt out
The main takeaway from the poll is surely that the Brexiteers have done a terrible job in demonstrating the positive case for Brexit. They need some visible, demonstrable and perceptible wins, and quickly, if they want to avoid the UK and the EU getting a whole lot closer.
They have, ending free movement. That is what the redwall voted for and even Starmer now will not restore it.
As soon as restoring that is mentioned the rejoin lead collapses to almost nothing
Managing to keep most of the Leave vote onside on one issue is not the same as demonstrating the positive case for Brexit to the whole country, or even to half of the country. The failure to do that almost inevitably means a much closer relationship further down the line.
The case for Brexit basically was ending free movement after Blair failed to impose transition controls on movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
Without that Remain would have likely won in 2016 anyway
New YouGov just published … Labour 48 Tory 24 LibDems 9 Reform 8 Greens 6 SNP 4 Polling conducted 4th and 5th January
That and Techne's almost identical results suggest that Sunak's speech (which as I said here I thought was quite good) had no effect.
If I were a Red Wall Tory in particular I would put some serious thought into either defection or a new career. Even standing as a sitting Tory in a marginal Northern seat feels like a waste of energy.
I defer to your greater wisdom of how this all works Nick, but I’d have thought for some especially ambitious ones it would help to go down fighting and then casting around for a winnable (hopefully) seat in 2028/2029 or whenever the next election comes?
The sad thing about the Tories’ disastrous parliament is that a lot of the new Northern MPs who genuinely had something different to bring to the table and could have articulated a new generation of conservatism are just going to be swept away. They could have been the future leaders and I would hope that they are able to stay in and help reshape the party in opposition, whatever role they occupy
I dunno about wisdom! But getting hammered in an election is generally a worse recommendation for reselection than doing something else and (maybe) coming back later. It's different from being a first-time candidate - everyone respects you for that regardless of the outcome. But losing badly in a swing against *you* doesn't look good.
Depends on the national swing.
If you are a Tory candidate who gets a lower than average swing against you in a bad year for the party nationally that looks better than a Tory candidate who lost in say 2019 or 2015 in a good year nationally for the party
Just 3% lead for Rejoin then if it is pointed out that means joining Schengen and free movement restored. That is even assuming we kept our Eurozone opt out
The main takeaway from the poll is surely that the Brexiteers have done a terrible job in demonstrating the positive case for Brexit. They need some visible, demonstrable and perceptible wins, and quickly, if they want to avoid the UK and the EU getting a whole lot closer.
They have, ending free movement. That is what the redwall voted for and even Starmer now will not restore it.
As soon as restoring that is mentioned the rejoin lead collapses to almost nothing
Managing to keep most of the Leave vote onside on one issue is not the same as demonstrating the positive case for Brexit to the whole country, or even to half of the country. The failure to do that almost inevitably means a much closer relationship further down the line.
The case for Brexit basically was ending free movement after Blair failed to impose transition controls on movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
Without that Remain would have likely won in 2016 anyway
It is obviously a lot more complicated than that, but I think you are right in identifying a, if not the, major reason for many people and yes it may have been different with transition controls.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Can you give me an example of a country joining the Euro before it had demonstrated (even fraudulently) that it had fulfilled the membership criteria including ERM participation?
Really frustrating that the cold weather isn't mentioned once. Every time there's a cold spell, we get more deaths. It's not rocket science to look at the historic data.
You do understand that excess deaths means deaths over the number expected? And that if there's more deaths every cold spell, then excess deaths now means deaths over the number you'd expect to get in a cold spell? This isn't, as you say, rocket science.
No, that's not right. They're talking about excess deaths over the average number in that week over the last five years - it doesn't control for weather at all.
That doesn't explain the "30,000 more deaths than expected in the past six months" though.
No, but I think Covid and the effects on the nation's health goes along way on that. Delayed diagnosis can give significantly worse prognosis, inability to access primary care is not helping, some are likely dying in ambulances outside A&E or on the kitchen floor after 10 hours waiting.
No question the UK has an old, sick population of unhealthy people and this is a factor.
However, the reporting and discussion is very UK focused, with little attempt to contextualize with the effects of the pandemic on other nations healthcare. Other systems are also stretched, but its natural to look at our own concerns.
Comments
"Our efforts have yielded results. But: we will not give up. After the Marder comes the Leopard" - Chairwoman of the Bundestag Defence Committee
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1611283401528561664
The likely supply soon of Bradleys and Marders is quite significant.
The fact that people in the UK distrust all such bodies including their own (BoE, Treasury, MPs, Parliament, Government) does not mean there is any chance of them not preferring their own to the one which links in all these ways under a unifying unelected authority Lithuania, Italy, Croatia and assorted randomers like France.
Without that Remain would have likely won in 2016 anyway
If you are a Tory candidate who gets a lower than average swing against you in a bad year for the party nationally that looks better than a Tory candidate who lost in say 2019 or 2015 in a good year nationally for the party
Gone to a twelfth ballot
No question the UK has an old, sick population of unhealthy people and this is a factor.
However, the reporting and discussion is very UK focused, with little attempt to contextualize with the effects of the pandemic on other nations healthcare. Other systems are also stretched, but its natural to look at our own concerns.