Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov’s latest Brexit tracker – the monthly average trend cha

The final 2017 poll was for YouGov which included it’s regular Brexit tracker which PB has been reporting on ever since it was introduced shortly after the 2016 Brexit referendum.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
However, in the real world I am fairly sure that if we changed our minds and shamefacedly asked to recant A50 a means would be found for us to do so by a delighted EU. Most countries would be happy to have us back and any that wished to be awkward (e.g. Luxembourg, Spain) would probably find their 'no' vote mysteriously changed to 'yes' on the way to the count. This is for two simple reasons. Not only would that kill any thought of anyone else trying to leave, but it would also bring us back in with all that lovely trade and money and intelligence data but also severely weakened and having lost much of our prestige and a number of European agencies, leaving the Francophile vision of big state federalism truly triumphant.
Which is why, no matter how badly Barnier and Davis bugger up talks between them, Theresa May is about as likely to do it as John Macdonnell is to endorse the sale of Network Rail to a group of hedge funds.
(I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
On topic, what this surely does show is that there is no good widely accepted outcome to the situation we are now in. If the government tries to do a reverse ferret and stay in, there will be the same groundswell of opposition to the EU there always has been, while if they continue to pull us out those who voted Remain will still be unreconciled to that decision.
I will confess that does surprise me a bit because even as a Remainer my impression was the EU was always barely tolerated and certainly not widely liked - indeed that was one of the rationales for the referendum was it not, to ensure that there was a clear and unambiguous mandate for continued EU membership after years of sniping and division? But on this evidence it seems it was considerably more popular in and of itself than I had realised.
RoyalBlue said:
» show previous quotes
Thanks for sharing @DavidL . Does that mean that the AG has to come to a conclusion within 21 days? Who appointed the incumbent? Can the Court of Session refer to CJEU or could that be appealed?
Apologies for my near total ignorance of Scots law.
I said:
No he has to lodge answers, that is a written response to the Court. There will then be a procedural hearing at which the scope of the substantive hearing will be sorted out along with any questions of further pleadings, evidence, documents etc.
The Advocate General is appointed by the UK government to represent their legal interests in Scotland. Richard Keen QC is a former Dean of Faculty and one of the outstanding Court lawyers of his generation.
For a referral there has to be shown to be a legal controversy based on EU law of some substance. In my limited experience of such a thing it is quite tricky and takes a long time even when the Court is minded to make the reference in principle. A decision by a Judge at first instance to make the referral can be appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session and, with leave, to the Supreme Court.
Item A still seems quite likely though especially given recent developments over Poland, Hungary and Austria where the EU itch to meddle seems to be irresistible. If the EU does head towards full federalism it's difficult to see how we can rejoin it - for example, I would be very surprised indeed if there is a majority to join a federal EU in Scotland.
"The fact that they tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, and right wing are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics."
Don't forget northern, don't have degrees (when they were young having a degree actually meant something!), racist, xenophobic, only voted leave cos of an advert on a bus and didn't know what they were voting for!
Talking about 'full' federalism is also problematic because how do you define it? The Schulz plan is pure fantasy that is a legal impossibility.
""The fact that they tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, and right wing are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics."
Don't forget northern, don't have degrees (when they were young having a degree actually meant something!), racist, xenophobic, only voted leave cos of an advert on a bus and didn't know what they were voting for!"
Happy that believing Remainers are patronising gits gives succour to Leavers who are coming to realise that "taking back control" and the reclamation of sovereignty* are simple fantasies.
*insert DD quote here.
So if there is any sign of caving in and allowing it permanent oversight separately from our own legal system, that's a serious matter, especially for EU citizens who would effectively lose the right to have the more robust protection of the British courts. I'm pretty unhappy about its being allowed to have jurisdiction beyond next year as it is (it's one of the less edifying features of the EU) - any further extension is a big no-no.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Now 69% of Labour voters back Remain compared to 81% of LD voters while 72% of Tory voters back Leave. Those numbers explain the Labour leaderships current lack of a clear position on the Brexit process and long-term outcome.
Whether they're right about the outcome or not is a very different question.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-fails-to-retain-voice-in-european-court-of-justice
In any case, a joint body would be inappropriate. One country, one law, one legal system. Examples to the contrary are, shall we say, less than stellar.
But we do not have government by opinion poll. The decision was taken in June 2016 at the referendum.
Remoaners should stop trying to frustrate that referendum result. Respect the Brexit vote, give it a chance to succeed, and if it is the disaster you predict, then campaign to rejoin the EU at a later date.
2. We do respect the Brexit vote and have no option but to give it a chance to succeed - please explain what that means, that said.
3. Very few remainers thought or think it would be a disaster, just that it would diminish the wealth and prosperity of the UK, in particular of those who can least afford it; and
4. We may, we may not. But I personally can't see us going back and am far from sure it would be the right thing to do as it would destroy yet more value for the country.
Other than that, great post.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/benevolent-dictators.html
Therefore, not only should it not be used but I suspect an ulterior motive in bringing it forward. Neither is really an acceptable outcome.
A couple of comments on this. Firstly the ECJ system places a lot of trust on the independence and competence of national courts. The undermining of the rule of law in Poland in particular also undermines the functioning of the EU in one of its member states.
Secondly, you could argue that the ECJ is not the extra-territorial monster it is made out to be as judgments are all made by national courts. For that argument to have value people need to understand how the ECJ actually works rather than how they imagine it works.
This flow chart explains quite well how it works in Singapore:
https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/importing-goods/quick-guide-for-importers
So even leaving aside principled objections - why is this being put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by the EU? Have they taken leave of what passes for their senses, are they trolling or did they actually not expect this to be taken seriously?
Edit. I come back to the point. The function of the ECJ is to establish a consistency of judicial interpretation. A consistency that in an ideal world would be happening anyway because all courts are interpreting the same law.
It's all fine until someone disagrees with your benevolence.
Then you have to shoot them.
And it isn't a hard border - just a restriction on selling goats that have been beaten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
Suspect new world wines may see an uptick in sales.
So that would be UK...one country...three legal systems...and four laws (recognising that while Wales is part of E&W jurisdiction and legal system it nevertheless has different laws)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-civil-servants-average-age-is-31-thm7j5xwc