Anna, will you take responsibility for wrapping us up so tighty in the EU that we cannot, in your view, leave - without ever asking the voters permission to do that?
Do you think the people of Northern Ireland have the right to say no to that?
So we come down to that grittiest of questions within any democratic system - does a minority have the right to frustrate the wishes of the majority?
If the majority of the rest of the UK are happy with a deal which leaves Northern Ireland in a different regulatory environment to the rest of the UK and with a different relationship to the EU than the rest of the UK, do or should the people of Northern Ireland (who may themselves be deeply divided) have an inherent veto on that deal?
If it was Surrey or Birmingham, would the same apply?
As someone might have said, do the wishes of the many outweigh the wishes of the few?
And lest we forget, NI voted to Remain by a clear margin
Though a majority of NI Protestants voted Leave, if only Protestant majority Antrim and Down had voted and not the Catholic majority counties, NI would have voted Leave
Hey HYUFD, care to take up my challenge? No need for a poll.
Do you support a permanent backstop where NI has (a) a regulatory barrier with GB or (b) has a regulatory and customs barrier with GB?
I believe a Customs Union backstop should apply to the whole UK
I am not sure that really answers the question.
A simple CU backstop for the whole UK is not on offer. What is on offer is (a) NI in the CU and SM, GB outside or (b) UK in the CU but a regulatory border with NI with NI inside the SM and GB outside.
So, if you agree to a UK wide CU backstop, does that mean that you support a regulatory border in the Irish Sea? And if the endgame is a customs border in the Irish Sea as a well, do you support that?
Caroline Flint tells her fellow Labour MPs on Sky News they should support a 'reasonable deal' with the EU rather than voting with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to crash out without a deal.
However she says she would still vote against May's government on a No Confidence vote
Mr. Recidivist, on trade: Northern Ireland does more with Great Britain than the Republic. On politics: a majority vote for unionist parties.
If they vote to join the Republic, that would sadden me but I'd accept it. Until then, they're part of the UK and forcing a customs barrier upon Northern Ireland, against their wishes, to satisfy the demands of a foreign power and kowtow to demands for regulatory annexation, is unacceptable.
Then you want a hard border which will have to be policed.
I would rather come to an arrangement that most people involved can live with.
There is no need for a policed border in NI. This has been confirmed by a whole variety of sources.
The Conservatives won most seats in a free and fair election. If you get your wish and the EU commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory, how does that accord with the wishes of the Northern Ireland electorate? Where is the democratic accountability?
I find your lack of concern, and seeming approval, about a foreign power wishing to impose a customs barrier within your own country, with no democratic consent, utterly baffling.
If Scotland voted to become independent would you approve of England, Wales and (maybe) Northern Ireland demanding the Lowlands remain within a UK customs union?
Would you support the UK demanding the Republic of Ireland join our customs union? That, at least, has the merit of keeping the Republic's territory united, rather than trying to carve out a piece to sate the appetite for regulatory imperialism.
I am not talking about different forms of Brexit. I am talking about May agreeing to a backstop that will divide the UK. This is what is being proposed NOW, and I am asking Remainers whether they favour it or not. Simple question. I expect constant attempts to evade getting an answer, just as you did.
I'd much rather the whole of the UK just stayed in the customs union altogether which still seems to me the obvious solution given it would have Labour backing as well.
If that's not an option, then I think I'd prefer a customs barrier in the Irish sea, to one on the Irish border. It seems to me we should keep our original commitment under the GFA.
I suspect there is a substantial tranche of public opinion that adopts the view that it is wrong that a democratic state is unable to leave the EU in a harmless and equitable way. Our government may be incompetent, but that isn't the sole reason leaving is unnecessarily difficulties.
I'm not sure we should belong to an organisation we cannot leave.
You can't cut your left leg off in a harmless and equitable way either. I wouldn't blame your left leg for that. For any useful thing, it's obviously going to be harmful to stop having it.
Mr. Recidivist, work was being done on an electronic answer to that, with Enda Kenny, before the cantankerous gnome became head of the Republic's government and decided to stop co-operation with the UK in favour of trying to use Northern Ireland for leverage.
Caroline Flint tells her fellow Labour MPs on Sky News they should support a 'reasonable deal' with the EU rather than voting with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to crash out without a deal.
However she says she would still vote against May's government on a No Confidence vote
Er - May's problem right now is the DUP no-confidencing the Government, which frankly makes the Brexit vote irrelevant.
But Labour is not going to supply nearly enough votes to stop the ERG torpedoing May.
I am not talking about different forms of Brexit. I am talking about May agreeing to a backstop that will divide the UK. This is what is being proposed NOW, and I am asking Remainers whether they favour it or not. Simple question. I expect constant attempts to evade getting an answer, just as you did.
I'd much rather the whole of the UK just stayed in the customs union altogether which still seems to me the obvious solution given it would have Labour backing as well.
If that's not an option, then I think I'd prefer a customs barrier in the Irish sea, to one on the Irish border. It seems to me we should keep our original commitment under the GFA.
Thank you for answering. However, there was no such commitment under the GFA. If you think there was, please quote it.
I am not talking about different forms of Brexit. I am talking about May agreeing to a backstop that will divide the UK. This is what is being proposed NOW, and I am asking Remainers whether they favour it or not. Simple question. I expect constant attempts to evade getting an answer, just as you did.
We will agree the backstop because we prefer mitigated disaster to outright disaster. We like our jobs and welfare and lifestyles and we don't think no car industry is better than a bad car industry. In short we need the deal with the EU and the backstop unlocks it .It is worth pointing out that the backstop is supported by most people in Northern Ireland - the DUP is a minority. It only kicks in if we diverge from the EU - the trick is never to do so.
I like your posts here. They are informed, clear sighted and suffer from none of the delusions that other Leavers hold so dear. But those delusions are key. Without them very few people will support your vision of Brexit.
Do you think the people of Northern Ireland have the right to say no to that?
So we come down to that grittiest of questions within any democratic system - does a minority have the right to frustrate the wishes of the majority?
If the majority of the rest of the UK are happy with a deal which leaves Northern Ireland in a different regulatory environment to the rest of the UK and with a different relationship to the EU than the rest of the UK, do or should the people of Northern Ireland (who may themselves be deeply divided) have an inherent veto on that deal?
If it was Surrey or Birmingham, would the same apply?
As someone might have said, do the wishes of the many outweigh the wishes of the few?
And lest we forget, NI voted to Remain by a clear margin
So what? £it was a national vote. There were no opt outs
Do you think the people of Northern Ireland have the right to say no to that?
So we come down to that grittiest of questions within any democratic system - does a minority have the right to frustrate the wishes of the majority?
If the majority of the rest of the UK are happy with a deal which leaves Northern Ireland in a different regulatory environment to the rest of the UK and with a different relationship to the EU than the rest of the UK, do or should the people of Northern Ireland (who may themselves be deeply divided) have an inherent veto on that deal?
If it was Surrey or Birmingham, would the same apply?
As someone might have said, do the wishes of the many outweigh the wishes of the few?
In principle, if the majority of the UK would be happy then yes it would be acceptable even if NI (or a significant portion of NI) were unhappy. However, no doubt there would be significant consequences as a result, just as there may be for the the fact that NI and Scotland are leaving even though they did not want to because the UK is a unitary state. And while I respect that the EU are allowed to have red lines as well, some of their demands re NI do come across to me as patently unreasonable.
That's a nonsense, it's already been claimed there were that many letters, or there abouts. Either there's been no surge or people were lying about the number before.
Level pegging with the opposition (at worst) or even possibly several points ahead of them are the lightest of light blue 'mid-term blues'.
We aren't at mid-term yet.
True enough, but already in the dying months of the government I suspect.
In other electoral news, I see that in the Brazilian parliament the most popular single parties have only around 10% of representatives in either chamber. They must love electoral alliances.
While I think a referendum which includes a remain option may well be necessary, that is just a very silly comment from her. Of course Brexit can be delivered, it is a lie to say it cannot be. A Brexit that all will be happy with cannot be delivered, a Brexit without cost cannot be delivered (and too many, though certainly not all, claimed that it would be without cost), but Brexit is still deliverable.
It may well be the people would prefer not to proceed now that the chaos and cost is clearer, though no deal still seems to have plenty of backing among the public, but she and those like her do their cause no favours with such a lie as saying it simply cannot be delivered. And it is one of those rare things, a direct lie in politics.
Mr. Recidivist, work was being done on an electronic answer to that, with Enda Kenny, before the cantankerous gnome became head of the Republic's government and decided to stop co-operation with the UK in favour of trying to use Northern Ireland for leverage.
As for checks, some of these happen already.
Yes I am sure there will ultimately be a technological solution. Those hard light holograms that they have on Star Trek Voyager would do the job nicely.
I am not talking about different forms of Brexit. I am talking about May agreeing to a backstop that will divide the UK. This is what is being proposed NOW, and I am asking Remainers whether they favour it or not. Simple question. I expect constant attempts to evade getting an answer, just as you did.
I'd much rather the whole of the UK just stayed in the customs union altogether which still seems to me the obvious solution given it would have Labour backing as well.
If that's not an option, then I think I'd prefer a customs barrier in the Irish sea, to one on the Irish border. It seems to me we should keep our original commitment under the GFA.
Thank you for answering. However, there was no such commitment under the GFA. If you think there was, please quote it.
Honestly I'm a bit lost about all of this border/hard border/soft border stuff.
But if your suggestion of leaving the customs union, without having a border in Northern Ireland worked, TM would have jumped at it. It would have been a fantastic solution to her biggest problem.
She obviously doesn't want to risk her government by proposing this weird set of arrangements with a customs barrier in the Irish sea. And yet she is. Why?
I think because it seems to be the only possible Brexit that meets her red lines.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
I suspect there is a substantial tranche of public opinion that adopts the view that it is wrong that a democratic state is unable to leave the EU in a harmless and equitable way. Our government may be incompetent, but that isn't the sole reason leaving is unnecessarily difficulties.
It is perfectly possible to leave, just not possible to leave and then to claim the benefits of remaining.
The EU is not at fault for the Brexiteers failure to understand!
Foxy, a matter of opinion, it would seem. Anna says it can't be delivered, in her view we can't leave. That is, in my view, a message that adds resolve and impetus to leave. Counter productive to the remain cause.
Caroline Flint tells her fellow Labour MPs on Sky News they should support a 'reasonable deal' with the EU rather than voting with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to crash out without a deal.
However she says she would still vote against May's government on a No Confidence vote
Er - May's problem right now is the DUP no-confidencing the Government, which frankly makes the Brexit vote irrelevant.
But Labour is not going to supply nearly enough votes to stop the ERG torpedoing May.
I think you are right about that, since there are more ERG who will vote against than Labour MPs who will vote for, but frankly a Brexit agreement of some kind is more important than a mere government. If the Commons thinks the agreement is necessary they should vote for it even if it means that the confidence and supply agreement breaks and we end up with a new GE. Just as the fear of such should not stop those who think the deal is terrible from voting against the government, Brexit is an issue which should be transcending parties.
While I think a referendum which includes a remain option may well be necessary, that is just a very silly comment from her. Of course Brexit can be delivered, it is a lie to say it cannot be. A Brexit that all will be happy with cannot be delivered, a Brexit without cost cannot be delivered (and too many, though certainly not all, claimed that it would be without cost), but Brexit is still deliverable.
It may well be the people would prefer not to proceed now that the chaos and cost is clearer, though no deal still seems to have plenty of backing among the public, but she and those like her do their cause no favours with such a lie as saying it simply cannot be delivered. And it is one of those rare things, a direct lie in politics.
Mr. Recidivist, are you saying Varadkar's predecessor was co-operating with the UK on something that was 100% fictional as far as being a feasible solution goes?
Miss Vance, a big if indeed.
Mr. kle4, indeed, another referendum remains a plausible possibility.
I don't see how either side can be said to win or lose in this negotiation. We want to leave and the EU is allowing us to do so. We have no argument or grievance with the EU. Practically speaking, we all know that we'll be rejoining - so there isn't even much incentive to argue over the proceeds. These should be the easiest negotiations in history.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
I suspect there is a substantial tranche of public opinion that adopts the view that it is wrong that a democratic state is unable to leave the EU in a harmless and equitable way. Our government may be incompetent, but that isn't the sole reason leaving is unnecessarily difficulties.
It is perfectly possible to leave, just not possible to leave and then to claim the benefits of remaining.
The EU is not at fault for the Brexiteers failure to understand!
Foxy, a matter of opinion, it would seem. Anna says it can't be delivered, in her view we can't leave. That is, in my view, a message that adds resolve and impetus to leave. Counter productive to the remain cause.
Soubry is simply wrong. We can leave, that much is obvious, though we cannot leave without pain.
Soubry is lying, as indeed were the Brexiteers who said we could leave painlessly, but what do you expect from politicians? Telling the truth is not a route to electoral success.
Caroline Flint tells her fellow Labour MPs on Sky News they should support a 'reasonable deal' with the EU rather than voting with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to crash out without a deal.
However she says she would still vote against May's government on a No Confidence vote
Er - May's problem right now is the DUP no-confidencing the Government, which frankly makes the Brexit vote irrelevant.
But Labour is not going to supply nearly enough votes to stop the ERG torpedoing May.
The ERG have not got the numbers to topple May as Tory leader, if May loses the Deal vote as the Daily Mail says today she will call a general election before Christmas.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
The voters now think Brexit was a mistake. That’s not going to be corrected. The voters aren’t going to get much say in the form of Brexit either as things stand. It will be cobbled together between flunkeys and zealots.
I suspect there is a substantial tranche of public opinion that adopts the view that it is wrong that a democratic state is unable to leave the EU in a harmless and equitable way. Our government may be incompetent, but that isn't the sole reason leaving is unnecessarily difficulties.
It is perfectly possible to leave, just not possible to leave and then to claim the benefits of remaining.
The EU is not at fault for the Brexiteers failure to understand!
Foxy, a matter of opinion, it would seem. Anna says it can't be delivered, in her view we can't leave. That is, in my view, a message that adds resolve and impetus to leave. Counter productive to the remain cause.
Soubry is simply wrong. We can leave, that much is obvious, though we cannot leave without pain.
Soubry is lying, as indeed were the Brexiteers who said we could leave painlessly, but what do you expect from politicians? Telling the truth is not a route to electoral success.
Massaging the truth is something all politicians do, and depending on what is said and how can be a grey area at their best, but direct lies are clearly wrong. Those who said we could leave painlessly were wrong to say it (and will pay an electoral price for it when pain hits), Soubry is wrong to say what she is saying now.
F1: there's a new special, Hamilton to win the title at the next race. With three remaining after the US, that means he needs a lead of 75 points (or maybe 76, unsure).
Effectively, if he wins and Vettel is third or lower, he gets the title.
The odds are 2.37.
I'd probably be more inclined to back Bottas, as I have, at 8.5 (9 with boost) each way to win. There may be rain in Texas, which could make things a bit topsy turvy, but all else being equal you'd expect the Mercedes to be the only cars faster than the Ferraris. If Bottas is in the top two, then the 2.37 title bet would come off too, but the odds on Bottas are more attractive.
There's also the potential, unlikely though it is, Mercedes may try and give him 'back' his win.
Mr. Recidivist, are you saying Varadkar's predecessor was co-operating with the UK on something that was 100% fictional as far as being a feasible solution goes?
Miss Vance, a big if indeed.
Mr. kle4, indeed, another referendum remains a plausible possibility.
Varadkar is the sovereign choice of the Irish for their party to the negotiations. You may prefer someone else, but it is a pretty key ground rule of negotiating that we do not get to choose their team, whether in Dublin or Brussels.
They've been pretty clear for literally months that May is on the wrong path, seriously what is their plan to change her mind? I know she has made concessions before, but the matters of dispute now are not fudgable, what exactly are they hoping to happen if she doesn't cave in?
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
The voters now think Brexit was a mistake. That’s not going to be corrected. The voters aren’t going to get much say in the form of Brexit either as things stand. It will be cobbled together between flunkeys and zealots.
As that poll shows voters will only vote to reverse Brexit if No Deal.
Provided we get a deal, even a cobbled together one, or even if we go to a Norway style relationship with the EU and stay in the Single Market they still prefer that to Remain
Practically speaking, we all know that we'll be rejoining
Brave. In the Sir Humphrey sense. If I were the EU I'd wait at least two decades before considering an application from us - and then the offer would be table d'hôte, not a la carte - which may be a bit of a stretch. For good or ill, we're set on a significantly different path for the foreseeable future....
Caroline Flint tells her fellow Labour MPs on Sky News they should support a 'reasonable deal' with the EU rather than voting with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to crash out without a deal.
However she says she would still vote against May's government on a No Confidence vote
Er - May's problem right now is the DUP no-confidencing the Government, which frankly makes the Brexit vote irrelevant.
But Labour is not going to supply nearly enough votes to stop the ERG torpedoing May.
The ERG have not got the numbers to topple May as Tory leader, if May loses the Deal vote as the Daily Mail says today she will call a general election before Christmas.
Opinium today has the Tories 4% ahead of Labour
I don't think that time course realistic, but if there were to be a crisis of a scale to bring on a GE, are you seriously thinking that it wouldn't shift perceptions of parties?
Practically speaking, we all know that we'll be rejoining
Brave. In the Sir Humphrey sense. If I were the EU I'd wait at least two decades before considering an application from us - and then the offer would be table d'hôte, not a la carte - which may be a bit of a stretch. For good or ill, we're set on a significantly different path for the foreseeable future....
It would certainly be advisable to make sure we know you cannot jump in and out quickly, and that from now on it's in all the way or out all the way.
Dr. Foxy, previously, Mr. Recidivist implied an electronic solution to the border was science fiction. I then enquired, if that were so, why was Varadkar's predecessor working with us to bring it about. I never said we should be able to pick who governs the Republic.
Mr. HYUFD, perhaps in polling. But come a second referendum I think the Leave vote would be depressed (in both meanings of the word) and Remain fired up, and would be confident of a Remain victory.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
The voters now think Brexit was a mistake. That’s not going to be corrected. The voters aren’t going to get much say in the form of Brexit either as things stand. It will be cobbled together between flunkeys and zealots.
"Brexit has cost you your strength! Victory has defeated you!"
Caroline Flint tells her fellow Labour MPs on Sky News they should support a 'reasonable deal' with the EU rather than voting with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to crash out without a deal.
However she says she would still vote against May's government on a No Confidence vote
Er - May's problem right now is the DUP no-confidencing the Government, which frankly makes the Brexit vote irrelevant.
But Labour is not going to supply nearly enough votes to stop the ERG torpedoing May.
The ERG have not got the numbers to topple May as Tory leader, if May loses the Deal vote as the Daily Mail says today she will call a general election before Christmas.
Opinium today has the Tories 4% ahead of Labour
I don't think that time course realistic, but if there were to be a crisis of a scale to bring on a GE, are you seriously thinking that it wouldn't shift perceptions of parties?
Absolutely
Around 40% of the country is rock solid anti Corbyn, just under 40% of the country is rock solid pro Corbyn.
Some Tories have moved to UKIP after Chequers and May's move to compromise with the EU but they have been balanced by some 2017 Labour and LD voters moving to the Tories
I am not talking about different forms of Brexit. I am talking about May agreeing to a backstop that will divide the UK. This is what is being proposed NOW, and I am asking Remainers whether they favour it or not. Simple question. I expect constant attempts to evade getting an answer, just as you did.
I'd much rather the whole of the UK just stayed in the customs union altogether which still seems to me the obvious solution given it would have Labour backing as well.
If that's not an option, then I think I'd prefer a customs barrier in the Irish sea, to one on the Irish border. It seems to me we should keep our original commitment under the GFA.
Thank you for answering. However, there was no such commitment under the GFA. If you think there was, please quote it.
Honestly I'm a bit lost about all of this border/hard border/soft border stuff.
But if your suggestion of leaving the customs union, without having a border in Northern Ireland worked, TM would have jumped at it. It would have been a fantastic solution to her biggest problem.
She obviously doesn't want to risk her government by proposing this weird set of arrangements with a customs barrier in the Irish sea. And yet she is. Why?
I think because it seems to be the only possible Brexit that meets her red lines.
It does work. The EU don't want to offer it because they have laid a trap - if we agree a permanent backstop and agree to pay the money, they can simply sit on their hands after Brexit and never agree anything.
May simply has been gutless and has agreed to offer the backstop partly because she doesn't really want to leave.
The ERG have not got the numbers to topple May as Tory leader, if May loses the Deal vote as the Daily Mail says today she will call a general election before Christmas.
It now requires a HoC vote to agree to an early general election, such that it is no longer purely in the gift of the PM. In 2017 the bill was approved the day after May's announcement. What I wonder would happen if on the same day as May's announcement of her intention, Graham Brady announced that sufficient further letters had gone in for there there to be a leadership challenge to May. Would the moving of a bill be cancelled pending the outcome of the leadership contest, or not?
Dr. Foxy, previously, Mr. Recidivist implied an electronic solution to the border was science fiction. I then enquired, if that were so, why was Varadkar's predecessor working with us to bring it about. I never said we should be able to pick who governs the Republic.
Mr. HYUFD, perhaps in polling. But come a second referendum I think the Leave vote would be depressed (in both meanings of the word) and Remain fired up, and would be confident of a Remain victory.
There won't be a second referendum before Brexit Day unless it is No Deal and I have already said Remain would win that
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
That is not remotely what that poll says. Goodness, all you do is quote polls and then you get it wrong.
In an AV runoff, Chequers was eliminated first (with a pitiful 9% LOL) and the last option standing was that advanced by headbangers like myself - Canada. And since the second option - 'Customs Union' - is not actually available (Barnier has made it clear that we cannot stay in the CU without following the rules of the SM - so this is Norway, which was eliminated second) the last two deliverable outcomes were No Deal and Canada.
How can someone who is a political editor for a major network be so stupid?
The UK charges EU CET on non-EU imports. Once out of the customs union, we can set whatever tariffs we like, including zero across the board, as long as the same tariffs applies to all MFN nations.
The ERG have not got the numbers to topple May as Tory leader, if May loses the Deal vote as the Daily Mail says today she will call a general election before Christmas.
It now requires a HoC vote to agree to an early general election, such that it is no longer purely in the gift of the PM. In 2017 the bill was approved the day after May's announcement. What I wonder would happen if on the same day as May's announcement of her intention, Graham Brady announced that sufficient further letters had gone in for there there to be a leadership challenge to May. Would the moving of a bill be cancelled pending the outcome of the leadership contest, or not?
An interesting question. The gov has to move bills, correct? And whatever the outcome of the contest May would still be PM, so before it takes place she could theoretically proceed ahead with it if she wanted? I'm unsure of the mechanism of how the government gets its business to a vote, since presumably in this scenario various people would refuse to do so even if she personally stated it was moving forward before the VONC?
I am not talking about different forms of Brexit. I am talking about May agreeing to a backstop that will divide the UK. This is what is being proposed NOW, and I am asking Remainers whether they favour it or not. Simple question. I expect constant attempts to evade getting an answer, just as you did.
I'd much rather the whole of the UK just stayed in the customs union altogether which still seems to me the obvious solution given it would have Labour backing as well.
If that's not an option, then I think I'd prefer a customs barrier in the Irish sea, to one on the Irish border. It seems to me we should keep our original commitment under the GFA.
Thank you for answering. However, there was no such commitment under the GFA. If you think there was, please quote it.
Honestly I'm a bit lost about all of this border/hard border/soft border stuff.
But if your suggestion of leaving the customs union, without having a border in Northern Ireland worked, TM would have jumped at it. It would have been a fantastic solution to her biggest problem.
She obviously doesn't want to risk her government by proposing this weird set of arrangements with a customs barrier in the Irish sea. And yet she is. Why?
I think because it seems to be the only possible Brexit that meets her red lines.
It does work. The EU don't want to offer it because they have laid a trap - if we agree a permanent backstop and agree to pay the money, they can simply sit on their hands after Brexit and never agree anything.
May simply has been gutless and has agreed to offer the backstop partly because she doesn't really want to leave.
I find that an entirely unconvincing explanation of her motives. What May is doing now, in going against her party and her voters, is a much braver choice which may cost her premiership.
The ERG have not got the numbers to topple May as Tory leader, if May loses the Deal vote as the Daily Mail says today she will call a general election before Christmas.
It now requires a HoC vote to agree to an early general election, such that it is no longer purely in the gift of the PM. In 2017 the bill was approved the day after May's announcement. What I wonder would happen if on the same day as May's announcement of her intention, Graham Brady announced that sufficient further letters had gone in for there there to be a leadership challenge to May. Would the moving of a bill be cancelled pending the outcome of the leadership contest, or not?
Soubry, Grieve, Wollaston etc would vote with Labour for a general election rather than risk No Deal even if May is replaced by Davis
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
I wasn't asking about the form of Brexit. I was asking whether people agreed with the backstop that separates the UK either via a regulatory border or a customs border. Nothing else. I can't make you answer but it is a pretty simple question.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
I wasn't asking about the form of Brexit. I was asking whether people agreed with the backstop that separates the UK either via a regulatory border or a customs border. Nothing else. I can't make you answer but it is a pretty simple question.
To quote Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive: I Don’t Care.
Do you think the people of Northern Ireland have the right to say no to that?
So we come down to that grittiest of questions within any democratic system - does a minority have the right to frustrate the wishes of the majority?
If the majority of the rest of the UK are happy with a deal which leaves Northern Ireland in a different regulatory environment to the rest of the UK and with a different relationship to the EU than the rest of the UK, do or should the people of Northern Ireland (who may themselves be deeply divided) have an inherent veto on that deal?
If it was Surrey or Birmingham, would the same apply?
As someone might have said, do the wishes of the many outweigh the wishes of the few?
And lest we forget, NI voted to Remain by a clear margin
Though a majority of NI Protestants voted Leave, if only Protestant majority Antrim and Down had voted and not the Catholic majority counties, NI would have voted Leave
Hey HYUFD, care to take up my challenge? No need for a poll.
Do you support a permanent backstop where NI has (a) a regulatory barrier with GB or (b) has a regulatory and customs barrier with GB?
I believe a Customs Union backstop should apply to the whole UK
I am not sure that really answers the question.
A simple CU backstop for the whole UK is not on offer. What is on offer is (a) NI in the CU and SM, GB outside or (b) UK in the CU but a regulatory border with NI with NI inside the SM and GB outside.
So, if you agree to a UK wide CU backstop, does that mean that you support a regulatory border in the Irish Sea? And if the endgame is a customs border in the Irish Sea as a well, do you support that?
Mr. HYUFD, interesting. I think in a No Deal/Remain vote, Leave stands a better chance than in a referendum with options of Terrible Deal/Remain.
Of course, we won't find out who's right because we'll only have (at most) one more referendum.
Oh no. If No Deal v Remain Remain will almost certainly win. No Deal is by far Remainers best chance of reversing Brexit.
YouGov had it 55% Remain v 45% No Deal, No Deal has about the same support as Yes for independence did in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, significant but Leave still loses its majority
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
I wasn't asking about the form of Brexit. I was asking whether people agreed with the backstop that separates the UK either via a regulatory border or a customs border. Nothing else. I can't make you answer but it is a pretty simple question.
To quote Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive: I Don’t Care.
Agreed. + I don't see why I should feel I have to. I thought it madness to call a referendum in the first place, so I really don't see why I should feel responsible for its consequences. Mitigation of them is all I'm hoping for.
Mr. HYUFD, interesting. I think in a No Deal/Remain vote, Leave stands a better chance than in a referendum with options of Terrible Deal/Remain.
Of course, we won't find out who's right because we'll only have (at most) one more referendum.
Oh no. If No Deal v Remain Remain will almost certainly win. No Deal is by far Remainers best chance of reversing Brexit.
YouGov had it 55% Remain v 45% No Deal, No Deal has about the same support as Yes for independence did in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, significant but Leave still loses its majority
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
That is not remotely what that poll says. Goodness, all you do is quote polls and then you get it wrong.
In an AV runoff, Chequers was eliminated first (with a pitiful 9% LOL) and the last option standing was that advanced by headbangers like myself - Canada. And since the second option - 'Customs Union' - is not actually available (Barnier has made it clear that we cannot stay in the CU without following the rules of the SM - so this is Norway, which was eliminated second) the last two deliverable outcomes were No Deal and Canada.
Absolutely that is what the poll says.
In order of favourability Canada is on +20%, Norway on +7%, Chequers on +5%, Remain on +1%, No Deal on -33%.
In terms of Brexit options only (excluding Remain) Canada gets 39% in round 1, Customs Union 19% (as May is moving towards for the whole UK), No Deal 19%, Norway 15%, Chequers 9%.
Eliminating Chequers sees Customs Union move to second on 22% ahead of No Deal on 21% and Norway and full Single Market on 19% but behind Canada on 39%. No Deal is eliminated in the next round and Canada beats Customs Union 65% to 35% in the final round.
However as Barnier has made clear Canada is only an option for GB not UK so May's support for a Customs Union for the whole UK then matches what most voters want after Canada
The only possible referendum that will ever be granted is the Govt Deal approve/not approve (eg Govt Deal v No Deal). No Deal would win.
I don't see why the EU would be expected to grant an article 50 extension to give the British time to do that.
Tend to agree, I don't predict a referendum, but if May wants to get out of trouble without calling and losing a GE she might try this - I can imagine her party agreeing so long as these are the only options.
Mr. HYUFD, interesting. I think in a No Deal/Remain vote, Leave stands a better chance than in a referendum with options of Terrible Deal/Remain.
Of course, we won't find out who's right because we'll only have (at most) one more referendum.
Oh no. If No Deal v Remain Remain will almost certainly win. No Deal is by far Remainers best chance of reversing Brexit.
YouGov had it 55% Remain v 45% No Deal, No Deal has about the same support as Yes for independence did in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, significant but Leave still loses its majority
The only possible referendum that will ever be granted is the Govt Deal approve/not approve (eg Govt Deal v No Deal). No Deal would win.
Oh absolutely not.
The only possible referendums that will get through Parliament before March 2019 will be Remain v No Deal, which Remain would win and thus through your idiocy you will have killed Brexit, or Remain v Deal.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
That is not remotely what that poll says. Goodness, all you do is quote polls and then you get it wrong.
In an AV runoff, Chequers was eliminated first (with a pitiful 9% LOL) and the last option standing was that advanced by headbangers like myself - Canada. And since the second option - 'Customs Union' - is not actually available (Barnier has made it clear that we cannot stay in the CU without following the rules of the SM - so this is Norway, which was eliminated second) the last two deliverable outcomes were No Deal and Canada.
Absolutely that is what the poll says.
In order of favourability Canada is on +20%, Norway on +7%, Chequers on +5%, Remain on +1%, No Deal on -33%.
In terms of Brexit options only (excluding Remain) Canada gets 39% in round 1, Customs Union 19% (as May is moving towards for the whole UK), No Deal 19%, Norway 15%, Chequers 9%.
Eliminating Chequers sees Customs Union move to second on 22% ahead of No Deal on 21% and Norway and full Single Market on 19% but behind Canada on 39%. No Deal is eliminated in the next round and Canada beats Customs Union 65% to 35% in the final round.
However as Barnier has made clear Canada is only an option for GB not UK so May's support for a Customs Union for the whole UK then matches what most voters want after Canada
As I patiently explained to you, the CU is not available without following SM rules. That is the same as Norway, which does not have much support. So if CETA is not available No Deal is the favoured deliverable outcome.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
That is not remotely what that poll says. Goodness, all you do is quote polls and then you get it wrong.
In an AV runoff, Chequers was eliminated first (with a pitiful 9% LOL) and the last option standing was that advanced by headbangers like myself - Canada. And since the second option - 'Customs Union' - is not actually available (Barnier has made it clear that we cannot stay in the CU without following the rules of the SM - so this is Norway, which was eliminated second) the last two deliverable outcomes were No Deal and Canada.
Absolutely that is what the poll says.
In order of favourability Canada is on +20%, Norway on +7%, Chequers on +5%, Remain on +1%, No Deal on -33%.
stoms Union 65% to 35% in the final round.
However as Barnier has made clear Canada is only an option for GB not UK so May's support for a Customs Union for the whole UK then matches what most voters want after Canada
As I patiently explained to you, the CU is not available without following SM rules. That is the same as Norway, which does not have much support. So if CETA is not available No Deal is the favoured deliverable outcome.
No CU for the whole UK is not Norway.
However as the poll also shows even Norway has a net favourability of +7% which is still higher than Remain on +1% and far higher than No Deal on -33%.
No Deal is the least favoured outcome whichever way you look at it, if No Deal even Remain is preferred and thus you will have killed Brexit. Hence then Brexit RIP
Mr. P, Hancock arguing for a time limit that doesn't include a time limit is an intriguing and unorthodox application of the English language.
Edited extra bit: added Hancock's name to make plainer I was speaking about his utterances and not Mr. P's (who merely reported the exciting new approach to language).
Dr. Foxy, previously, Mr. Recidivist implied an electronic solution to the border was science fiction.
The real problem is a profound one. On the mainland we all accept the United Kingdom as an idea. During the Scottish independence referendum it was recognised by everyone that Scotland is a distinct part of the UK, and that it could if it wished separate itself from it. Nobody was suggesting splitting Scotland between pro and anti UK areas. And there would have been no problem establishing an open border between the two countries once it had been created.
In Northern Ireland you don't have that consensus. The part of Ireland that is in the UK does not have a shared vision of how Ireland should be. The very existence of a border, any border, is contentious. Technological solutions can help. It is harder to blow up a database than a checkpoint, and a database doesn't have a wife and family like a border guard does to grieve when you bury it.
And Brexit is all about borders. Isn't the whole point that we take back control of what happens inside the UK's borders? That only makes sense if we are going to control the borders themselves. We are going to have our own regulations, remember. We are going to do things differently. That is the whole point of the project. So we have to have hard borders. Nobody is disputing that where the borders are clear. My part of the country is in the process of having its motorways converted to lorry parks. That's what the UK voted for. I belong to the UK, I am along for the ride. But we have nearly a million people who don't accept the UK. The arguments you put forward earlier won't make any sense to them. We can't expel them without also expelling even more people who do want to be in the UK. We might be able to minimise the problem a little with tech, redrawing the border somewhat and making sure that plenty of taxpayers money gets spent in that bit of the UK. But the basic problem will not be solved.
Mr. HYUFD, interesting. I think in a No Deal/Remain vote, Leave stands a better chance than in a referendum with options of Terrible Deal/Remain.
Of course, we won't find out who's right because we'll only have (at most) one more referendum.
Oh no. If No Deal v Remain Remain will almost certainly win. No Deal is by far Remainers best chance of reversing Brexit.
YouGov had it 55% Remain v 45% No Deal, No Deal has about the same support as Yes for independence did in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, significant but Leave still loses its majority
What a preposterously torturous attempt to twist words into meaninglessness.
I will not cut my hair until I have played football for England. Is that time limited? Arguably yes, but unfortunately there's a very good chance I'll never play football for England.
It is harder to blow up a database than a checkpoint, and a database doesn't have a wife and family like a border guard does to grieve when you bury it.
This would be a UK government IT system, so in the unlikely event that they ever managed to deliver the thing it would blow itself up.
On Marr Emily Thornberry says the government is playing 'catch up' even to Donald Trump in condemning Saudi Arabia after the death of Jamal Khashoggi.
Says no more arms should be sold to Saudi Arabia, the red carpet must not be rolled out for the Saudi royals either
There have been 2 major UK police corruption investigations into Saud/UK trade deals of military hardware, stopped because they might have been "embarrassing" to the Saudis (one by Tony Blair). The present Saudi Yemen war is being fought with seconded UK military command as well as with UK supplied weapons and systems.
It is harder to blow up a database than a checkpoint, and a database doesn't have a wife and family like a border guard does to grieve when you bury it.
This would be a UK government IT system, so in the unlikely event that they ever managed to deliver the thing it would blow itself up.
However as the poll also shows even Norway has a net favourability of +7% which is still higher than Remain on +1% and far higher than No Deal on -33%.
No Deal is the least favoured outcome whichever way you look at it, if No Deal even Remain is preferred and thus you will have killed Brexit. Hence then Brexit RIP
I will have one more try. Barnier has been absolutely clear that if the UK remains in the CU, it will have to stay aligned with SM regulations. This is obvious because once goods enter a customs union they can circulate within that market because there are no more customs barriers. Also, trade agreements on which a CU is based are by necessity based on the standards of both sides. EU FTAs are based on EU standards, so you can't have goods entering and leaving that CU which are based on a wholly different set of standards as they won't be covered by the EUs trade agreements.
The CU is just a canard to persuade people such as yourself that there is a form of soft Brexit which does not involve Norway. There is not. CU on its own is not available. As a backstop it will involve ongoing alignment with SM regulations and therefore, in due course, the EU will insist on FOM and payments as Barnier has been explicit that the backstop can not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door. Which BTW was Robbins plan all along.
So, the only deliverable options are (unless the EU drop the backstop) No Deal and Norway. No Deal will win, quite easily. Even mainstream remainers know that Norway does not respect the referendum result.
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
What a preposterously torturous attempt to twist words into meaninglessness.
It's beyond a joke. Our EU membership itself came post-Lisbon with a 2-year exit clause yet this backstop presumably has no exit clause. It is insane.
Look on the bright side. It is, and appears to be, utterly stupid. There is no way to sell this kind of nonsense to the public at large. It also gives Labour an open goal to oppose May's deal on the grounds it is ridiculous.
Comments
A simple CU backstop for the whole UK is not on offer. What is on offer is (a) NI in the CU and SM, GB outside or (b) UK in the CU but a regulatory border with NI with NI inside the SM and GB outside.
So, if you agree to a UK wide CU backstop, does that mean that you support a regulatory border in the Irish Sea? And if the endgame is a customs border in the Irish Sea as a well, do you support that?
However she says she would still vote against May's government on a No Confidence vote
The Conservatives won most seats in a free and fair election. If you get your wish and the EU commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory, how does that accord with the wishes of the Northern Ireland electorate? Where is the democratic accountability?
I find your lack of concern, and seeming approval, about a foreign power wishing to impose a customs barrier within your own country, with no democratic consent, utterly baffling.
If Scotland voted to become independent would you approve of England, Wales and (maybe) Northern Ireland demanding the Lowlands remain within a UK customs union?
Would you support the UK demanding the Republic of Ireland join our customs union? That, at least, has the merit of keeping the Republic's territory united, rather than trying to carve out a piece to sate the appetite for regulatory imperialism.
If that's not an option, then I think I'd prefer a customs barrier in the Irish sea, to one on the Irish border. It seems to me we should keep our original commitment under the GFA.
As for checks, some of these happen already.
But Labour is not going to supply nearly enough votes to stop the ERG torpedoing May.
I like your posts here. They are informed, clear sighted and suffer from none of the delusions that other Leavers hold so dear. But those delusions are key. Without them very few people will support your vision of Brexit.
In other electoral news, I see that in the Brazilian parliament the most popular single parties have only around 10% of representatives in either chamber. They must love electoral alliances.
It may well be the people would prefer not to proceed now that the chaos and cost is clearer, though no deal still seems to have plenty of backing among the public, but she and those like her do their cause no favours with such a lie as saying it simply cannot be delivered. And it is one of those rare things, a direct lie in politics.
But if your suggestion of leaving the customs union, without having a border in Northern Ireland worked, TM would have jumped at it. It would have been a fantastic solution to her biggest problem.
She obviously doesn't want to risk her government by proposing this weird set of arrangements with a customs barrier in the Irish sea. And yet she is. Why?
I think because it seems to be the only possible Brexit that meets her red lines.
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1051381693364473856
Anna says it can't be delivered, in her view we can't leave. That is, in my view, a message that adds resolve and impetus to leave. Counter productive to the remain cause.
Miss Vance, a big if indeed.
Mr. kle4, indeed, another referendum remains a plausible possibility.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
1. Canada
2. Norway
3. Chequers
4. Remain
5. No Deal
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html
As wife of Michael Gove confirms he is likely strongly opposed to WTO terms Brexit too
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/brexit-scenarios-infographic.pdf
Soubry is lying, as indeed were the Brexiteers who said we could leave painlessly, but what do you expect from politicians? Telling the truth is not a route to electoral success.
Opinium today has the Tories 4% ahead of Labour
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/it0744dii4/TheTimes_181009_VI_Trackers_W.pdf
Effectively, if he wins and Vettel is third or lower, he gets the title.
The odds are 2.37.
I'd probably be more inclined to back Bottas, as I have, at 8.5 (9 with boost) each way to win. There may be rain in Texas, which could make things a bit topsy turvy, but all else being equal you'd expect the Mercedes to be the only cars faster than the Ferraris. If Bottas is in the top two, then the 2.37 title bet would come off too, but the odds on Bottas are more attractive.
There's also the potential, unlikely though it is, Mercedes may try and give him 'back' his win.
The Brexit refuseniks will be disappointed.
Provided we get a deal, even a cobbled together one, or even if we go to a Norway style relationship with the EU and stay in the Single Market they still prefer that to Remain
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1051401630963429376
Mr. HYUFD, perhaps in polling. But come a second referendum I think the Leave vote would be depressed (in both meanings of the word) and Remain fired up, and would be confident of a Remain victory.
https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/1051399270975373313?s=21
Around 40% of the country is rock solid anti Corbyn, just under 40% of the country is rock solid pro Corbyn.
Some Tories have moved to UKIP after Chequers and May's move to compromise with the EU but they have been balanced by some 2017 Labour and LD voters moving to the Tories
May simply has been gutless and has agreed to offer the backstop partly because she doesn't really want to leave.
I cannot understand the mechanism that puts the serial flouncer in number 10.
Of course, we won't find out who's right because we'll only have (at most) one more referendum.
In an AV runoff, Chequers was eliminated first (with a pitiful 9% LOL) and the last option standing was that advanced by headbangers like myself - Canada. And since the second option - 'Customs Union' - is not actually available (Barnier has made it clear that we cannot stay in the CU without following the rules of the SM - so this is Norway, which was eliminated second) the last two deliverable outcomes were No Deal and Canada.
How can someone who is a political editor for a major network be so stupid?
The UK charges EU CET on non-EU imports. Once out of the customs union, we can set whatever tariffs we like, including zero across the board, as long as the same tariffs applies to all MFN nations.
There is NO WTO schedule of tariffs.
Says no more arms should be sold to Saudi Arabia, the red carpet must not be rolled out for the Saudi royals either
What May is doing now, in going against her party and her voters, is a much braver choice which may cost her premiership.
YouGov had it 55% Remain v 45% No Deal, No Deal has about the same support as Yes for independence did in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, significant but Leave still loses its majority
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/10/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-final-weeks-of-brexit
The big betting-relevant point here is how much of the paths they discuss involve an article 50 extension.
In order of favourability Canada is on +20%, Norway on +7%, Chequers on +5%, Remain on +1%, No Deal on -33%.
In terms of Brexit options only (excluding Remain) Canada gets 39% in round 1, Customs Union 19% (as May is moving towards for the whole UK), No Deal 19%, Norway 15%, Chequers 9%.
Eliminating Chequers sees Customs Union move to second on 22% ahead of No Deal on 21% and Norway and full Single Market on 19% but behind Canada on 39%. No Deal is eliminated in the next round and Canada beats Customs Union 65% to 35% in the final round.
However as Barnier has made clear Canada is only an option for GB not UK so May's support for a Customs Union for the whole UK then matches what most voters want after Canada
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html
The only possible referendums that will get through Parliament before March 2019 will be Remain v No Deal, which Remain would win and thus through your idiocy you will have killed Brexit, or Remain v Deal.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1051409273874468866
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1051409723810082816
However as the poll also shows even Norway has a net favourability of +7% which is still higher than Remain on +1% and far higher than No Deal on -33%.
No Deal is the least favoured outcome whichever way you look at it, if No Deal even Remain is preferred and thus you will have killed Brexit. Hence then Brexit RIP
Edited extra bit: added Hancock's name to make plainer I was speaking about his utterances and not Mr. P's (who merely reported the exciting new approach to language).
In Northern Ireland you don't have that consensus. The part of Ireland that is in the UK does not have a shared vision of how Ireland should be. The very existence of a border, any border, is contentious. Technological solutions can help. It is harder to blow up a database than a checkpoint, and a database doesn't have a wife and family like a border guard does to grieve when you bury it.
And Brexit is all about borders. Isn't the whole point that we take back control of what happens inside the UK's borders? That only makes sense if we are going to control the borders themselves. We are going to have our own regulations, remember. We are going to do things differently. That is the whole point of the project. So we have to have hard borders. Nobody is disputing that where the borders are clear. My part of the country is in the process of having its motorways converted to lorry parks. That's what the UK voted for. I belong to the UK, I am along for the ride. But we have nearly a million people who don't accept the UK. The arguments you put forward earlier won't make any sense to them. We can't expel them without also expelling even more people who do want to be in the UK. We might be able to minimise the problem a little with tech, redrawing the border somewhat and making sure that plenty of taxpayers money gets spent in that bit of the UK. But the basic problem will not be solved.
Is that time limited? Arguably yes, but unfortunately there's a very good chance I'll never play football for England.
The CU is just a canard to persuade people such as yourself that there is a form of soft Brexit which does not involve Norway. There is not. CU on its own is not available. As a backstop it will involve ongoing alignment with SM regulations and therefore, in due course, the EU will insist on FOM and payments as Barnier has been explicit that the backstop can not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door. Which BTW was Robbins plan all along.
So, the only deliverable options are (unless the EU drop the backstop) No Deal and Norway. No Deal will win, quite easily. Even mainstream remainers know that Norway does not respect the referendum result.
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
This whole edifice of May's is about to collapse.