politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM finds the biggest backing yet for a referendum on the fina
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM finds the biggest backing yet for a referendum on the final deal
Brexit: Britons favour second referendum by 16-point margin – new ICM poll https://t.co/Kvw8o8zI29
Comments
-
Realistically there isn't the time to have a referendum, nor is there a desire for the EU to drag this out.
The idea of us remaining with all our pre-existing opt-outs and keeping our rebate is utterly fantastical.0 -
Maybe, although if the mood for a 2nd referendum continues to increase in the UK, it would be a masterstroke on the part of the EU to offer exactly that.Philip_Thompson said:Realistically there isn't the time to have a referendum, nor is there a desire for the EU to drag this out.
The idea of us remaining with all our pre-existing opt-outs and keeping our rebate is utterly fantastical.
Edit: Second, like the prospective referendum
0 -
So, endorse the negotiated deal - or we're out on WTO terms? Really? Explain that - and see how many people can be arsed.0
-
I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.0
-
But there wont be a second referendum. The Tories wont hold another because there is no electoral pressure on them to do so (they only held the first because they were losing votes to UKIP) and in any case the Opposition is not calling for one. Time is slipping away.......0
-
Will any pollster dare ask this question:
Would you rather £150 million was spent on holding a second EU referendum or on the NHS?
As for the second referendum will they also poll people on what the question should be?
Leave or remain - we did that
Leave on the agreed deal or leave with no deal
Agree the deal and leave or stay in the EU on current terms
Agree the deal or stay in the EU even if it means we must join the Euro and Schengen
Leave the customs union and stay in the single market or stay in the single market and leave the customs union. Or leave both or leave neither?
Canada, Norway or Switzerland - which EU relationship would you prefer for the UK
What exactly would we vote on - and who would agree the question?0 -
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
0 -
Gosh, Corbyn Labour still not matching Miliband's 12 point lead in 2012................0
-
There would have to be a remain option on the ballot.MarqueeMark said:So, endorse the negotiated deal - or we're out on WTO terms? Really? Explain that - and see how many people can be arsed.
0 -
Why? We already decided to leave.MikeSmithson said:
There would have to be a remain option on the ballot.MarqueeMark said:So, endorse the negotiated deal - or we're out on WTO terms? Really? Explain that - and see how many people can be arsed.
0 -
Will May and Corbyn lead the yes to the deal camp and Farage, Jacob Rees Mogg, Chuka Umuna and Lord Adonis lead the reject the deal camp as they either want a harder Brexit or to remain,stevef said:But there wont be a second referendum. The Tories wont hold another because there is no electoral pressure on them to do so (they only held the first because they were losing votes to UKIP) and in any case the Opposition is not calling for one. Time is slipping away.......
As you say - what would the referendum solve? We reject the deal - do we stay or leave on WTO rules - as Rees Mogg and Farage want a harder Brexit - or remain as that is what Adonis and Umunna want.
Chaos in other words! Which is why it won't happen.0 -
Suppose we have Referendum 2. Realistically, it seems that the deal will either be rejected or accepted by a small majority. What does that settle? If it's rejected, eurosceptics will agitate to reopen the issue. If it's accepted, europhiles will agitate to reopen the issue.0
-
I've been invited to two funerals this month. I suspect both were leavers so the invitations went straight in the fire but it does illustrate how the reaper's merciless scythe is shifting the demographics.0
-
Surely if the deal is rejected then we just crash out?Sean_F said:Suppose we have Referendum 2. Realistically, it seems that the deal will either be rejected or accepted by a small majority. What does that settle? If it's rejected, eurosceptics will agitate to reopen the issue. If it's accepted, europhiles will agitate to reopen the issue.
0 -
-
Shouldn't the header say that ICM voting intention is level - 41/41/7/4/3.0
-
-
That would be fair - maybe the last 6 pollsMikeL said:Shouldn't the header say that ICM voting intention is level - 41/41/7/4/3.
Tie
Labour +3
Labour +1
Labour +1
Labour +1
Tie
In other words - nothing is happening in the polls0 -
That is quite a disgusting post - is that how much you value someone's life and those families griefDura_Ace said:I've been invited to two funerals this month. I suspect both were leavers so the invitations went straight in the fire but it does illustrate how the reaper's merciless scythe is shifting the demographics.
Surely you are better than that0 -
I suspect you're a liar. I'd hate to think you were telling the truth.Dura_Ace said:I've been invited to two funerals this month. I suspect both were leavers so the invitations went straight in the fire but it does illustrate how the reaper's merciless scythe is shifting the demographics.
0 -
0
-
Every post Dura makes on practically every subject proves what an utter scumbag he is. I am in no way surprised by his latest emergence from the sewer.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is quite a disgusting post - is that how much you value someone's life and those families griefDura_Ace said:I've been invited to two funerals this month. I suspect both were leavers so the invitations went straight in the fire but it does illustrate how the reaper's merciless scythe is shifting the demographics.
Surely you are better than that0 -
-
The tweet is “fake”Alistair said:Some light relief
https://www.twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/956729170700259329
Hannity didn’t say it was Trump’s right to fire Mueller but that it was his right to raise questions about a possible conflict
Material difference0 -
No there wouldn't. You might want one but 'must' doesn't enter into it.MikeSmithson said:
There would have to be a remain option on the ballot.MarqueeMark said:So, endorse the negotiated deal - or we're out on WTO terms? Really? Explain that - and see how many people can be arsed.
0 -
Best of three.Sean_F said:Suppose we have Referendum 2. Realistically, it seems that the deal will either be rejected or accepted by a small majority. What does that settle? If it's rejected, eurosceptics will agitate to reopen the issue. If it's accepted, europhiles will agitate to reopen the issue.
0 -
Almost certainly a repeat of the original question, with the justification being that it was now clearer what the voters were voting for. They'd pitch it to Leavers the way Farage did - settle the issue, make the Remoaners finally stfu etc - which it wouldn't, but it would work as a line.brendan16 said:Will any pollster dare ask this question:
Would you rather £150 million was spent on holding a second EU referendum or on the NHS?
As for the second referendum will they also poll people on what the question should be?
Leave or remain - we did that
Leave on the agreed deal or leave with no deal
Agree the deal and leave or stay in the EU on current terms
Agree the deal or stay in the EU even if it means we must join the Euro and Schengen
Leave the customs union and stay in the single market or stay in the single market and leave the customs union. Or leave both or leave neither?
Canada, Norway or Switzerland - which EU relationship would you prefer for the UK
What exactly would we vote on - and who would agree the question?0 -
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
0 -
Very sad - there is enough hate as it isRichard_Tyndall said:
Every post Dura makes on practically every subject proves what an utter scumbag he is. I am in no way surprised by his latest emergence from the sewer.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is quite a disgusting post - is that how much you value someone's life and those families griefDura_Ace said:I've been invited to two funerals this month. I suspect both were leavers so the invitations went straight in the fire but it does illustrate how the reaper's merciless scythe is shifting the demographics.
Surely you are better than that0 -
It's not, pretty much everyone in the EU thinks Brexit is a stupid idea and would rather it was cancelled. There's a very strong schelling point around "just go back to the status quo ante", and everyone will want time to prepare anyhow so nobody would object pressing the pause button if they thought it would make the thing go away.Philip_Thompson said:Realistically there isn't the time to have a referendum, nor is there a desire for the EU to drag this out.
The idea of us remaining with all our pre-existing opt-outs and keeping our rebate is utterly fantastical.
I don't think a second referendum will happen, but whether it does is purely an internal Tory issue.0 -
Remain on the ballot would be so complicated. What kind of remain, ever closer union, unrestricted immigration, joining the euro, etc.Richard_Tyndall said:
No there wouldn't. You might want one but 'must' doesn't enter into it.MikeSmithson said:
There would have to be a remain option on the ballot.MarqueeMark said:So, endorse the negotiated deal - or we're out on WTO terms? Really? Explain that - and see how many people can be arsed.
Just a can of worms0 -
Average of 2018 opinion polls so far, (6 polls):
Lab 41.2%
Con 40.2%
LD 7.5%
UKIP 3.7%
Greens 2.5%
Changes since GE:
Lab +0.2%
Con -3.3%
LD -0.1%
UKIP +1.8%
Greens +0.8%
Baxter with current boundaries:
Con 289
Lab 288
LD 14
Greens 1
SNP 36
Baxter with new boundaries:
Con 281
Lab 259
LD 9
Greens 1
SNP 310 -
It's already up to best of five. We had 52:48 in June 2017. Then we had over 86% of the votes cast in June 2017 for parties committed to delivering Brexit voted for a year earlier. That was your "second referendum". A vote in which the LibDems got just 12 seats for their second referendum position.AndyJS said:
Best of three.Sean_F said:Suppose we have Referendum 2. Realistically, it seems that the deal will either be rejected or accepted by a small majority. What does that settle? If it's rejected, eurosceptics will agitate to reopen the issue. If it's accepted, europhiles will agitate to reopen the issue.
Forget opinion polls, a second referendum has already been massively rejected by the voters.0 -
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.0 -
The status quo ante no longer exists.edmundintokyo said:
It's not, pretty much everyone in the EU thinks Brexit is a stupid idea and would rather it was cancelled. There's a very strong schelling point around "just go back to the status quo ante", and everyone will want time to prepare anyhow so nobody would object pressing the pause button if they thought it would make the thing go away.Philip_Thompson said:Realistically there isn't the time to have a referendum, nor is there a desire for the EU to drag this out.
The idea of us remaining with all our pre-existing opt-outs and keeping our rebate is utterly fantastical.
I don't think a second referendum will happen, but whether it does is purely an internal Tory issue.
The status quo ante included us being obstinate refuseniks who got special privileges (as the rest of Europe saw it) because otherwise we threatened we might stop supporting the project. Hence the rebate. The rebate is hated by the rest of Europe.
Yes we might be able to remain keeping our opt-out from the Single Currency but the Rebate is dead. It already expires on 31/12/2020 when the current budget round expires and there is not a snowball's chance in hell of the rest of Europe agreeing to let us keep it if we show that we daren't Brexit even after a referendum said we should.0 -
I agree they won't make us join Schengen but it takes nothing to say "you can stay, but say goodbye to your rebate". That would make all other 27 countries happy and would be the "price" for this exercise.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.
It won't even need to be dressed up as that. They would just argue that the rebate that was created when the UK was one of the poorer states is no longer appropriate in an EU of 28 nations and put their foot down on the matter knowing we don't dare do anything else.0 -
Yet crucially in terms of the actual voting intention for a second EU referendum Remain only leads by 2%, 51% to 49%0
-
German polls a bit contradictory at the moment - the earlier signs of an SPD slide and Left/AfD growth have been partly reversed, and everyone is roughly where they were at the election.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
That makes no sense since the rebate is literally calculated from the surplus Britain pays. If the UK was one of the poorer states there would be no surplus.Philip_Thompson said:It won't even need to be dressed up as that. They would just argue that the rebate that was created when the UK was one of the poorer states is no longer appropriate in an EU of 28 nations and put their foot down on the matter knowing we don't dare do anything else.
0 -
Not so. The ECJ is not there to sort out disagreements between states. It is there to ensure all citizens are treated correctly under the terms of the treaties. It doesnt matter whether the indibidual states agree or not. The ECJ will decide whether or not the UK can reverse Article 50. The EU already stated this several weeks ago.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.0 -
So, a double win....Scott_P said:0 -
Surely you aren't suggesting we act and determine policy by the votes of tens of millions of people? No - surely opinion polls which got both those results wrong should decide.MarqueeMark said:
It's already up to best of five. We had 52:48 in June 2017. Then we had over 86% of the votes cast in June 2017 for parties committed to delivering Brexit voted for a year earlier. That was your "second referendum". A vote in which the LibDems got just 12 seats for their second referendum position.AndyJS said:
Best of three.Sean_F said:Suppose we have Referendum 2. Realistically, it seems that the deal will either be rejected or accepted by a small majority. What does that settle? If it's rejected, eurosceptics will agitate to reopen the issue. If it's accepted, europhiles will agitate to reopen the issue.
Forget opinion polls, a second referendum has already been massively rejected by the voters.
Of course you would need to decide which pollster rules - as even they can't agree if people actually want a second referendum.
As the recent Ashcroft poll last week showed voters either back a second referendum by 8 per cent or oppose one by 13 per cent depending on the question you ask!
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/953582066565820416?lang=en-gb
Surely only one answer - let's have a referendum as to whether we have a second referendum. It's the only way to find out what the public want.0 -
Yes. I think people are answering a question that doesn't really exist. Having a vote seems quite innocuous until you explain the details - one of which would be that it'd cut down the time available for negotiations and another, as you say, is that the consequences of a No wouldn't be to either go back to the table pending a third vote, or to Remain.MarqueeMark said:So, endorse the negotiated deal - or we're out on WTO terms? Really? Explain that - and see how many people can be arsed.
0 -
It's not even absolutely clear that the ECJ would sign off an indefinite extension, which would be contrary to the obligations on all parties under Article 50 (i.e. that the withdrawing state was going to withdraw, and that the other states come to an agreement with it. I'm not saying that such an argument would be upheld but it could be credibly made. That said, there aren't any sanctions that the ECJ could apply.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.0 -
A 99 year extension would work.david_herdson said:
It's not even absolutely clear that the ECJ would sign off an indefinite extension, which would be contrary to the obligations on all parties under Article 50 (i.e. that the withdrawing state was going to withdraw, and that the other states come to an agreement with it. I'm not saying that such an argument would be upheld but it could be credibly made. That said, there aren't any sanctions that the ECJ could apply.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.0 -
Surely only one answer - let's have a referendum as to whether we have a second referendum. It's the only way to find out what the public want.
...........................................
I believe that was Lord Bucketheads policy. Unfortunately he was beaten by some second rate candidate so parliament is lesser for it.0 -
Or we could have a third general election in three years.TheJezziah said:Surely only one answer - let's have a referendum as to whether we have a second referendum. It's the only way to find out what the public want.
...........................................
I believe that was Lord Bucketheads policy. Unfortunately he was beaten by some second rate candidate so parliament is lesser for it.0 -
Putting my incredibly biased hat on, I would rather the Tories agree some kind of deal on Brexit first at least, that way if Corbyn then changes anything he won't be up against the mythical incredible deal the Conservatives could have produced but an actual workable one.0
-
Would it? Again, the obligation under Article 50 is on the member states to reach an agreement to facilitate the state that gave its intention to leave, to leave. A 99 year extension seems to run very contrary to that obligation.Philip_Thompson said:
A 99 year extension would work.david_herdson said:
It's not even absolutely clear that the ECJ would sign off an indefinite extension, which would be contrary to the obligations on all parties under Article 50 (i.e. that the withdrawing state was going to withdraw, and that the other states come to an agreement with it. I'm not saying that such an argument would be upheld but it could be credibly made. That said, there aren't any sanctions that the ECJ could apply.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.
I said earlier that the ECJ had no sanction available. Actually, it does. It could simply rule the decision contrary to the Treaties and, therefore, invalid.0 -
Or what looks like an unworkable one.TheJezziah said:Putting my incredibly biased hat on, I would rather the Tories agree some kind of deal on Brexit first at least, that way if Corbyn then changes anything he won't be up against the mythical incredible deal the Conservatives could have produced but an actual workable one.
0 -
Interesting that Labour need to be about 7% ahead on the current boundaries for an overall majority, and 8% ahead on the proposed new boundaries. Both seem unlikely even if Labour do pretty well. So it looks like it would have to be some type of coalition if they are to govern.0
-
Depends what happens in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales. If Labour can pick up quite a few off the SNP in Scotland, 1 easy-ish Plaid Cymru in Wales and maybe one or two of the smaller Tory seats in Wales then Labour could get a majority with only a small lead over the Conservatives.
If Labour can't take anything from the SNP in Scotland then it probably would require big leads in order to for Labour to get a majority.0 -
An extension to some far-off futute date wouldn't be a reversal.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not so. The ECJ is not there to sort out disagreements between states. It is there to ensure all citizens are treated correctly under the terms of the treaties. It doesnt matter whether the indibidual states agree or not. The ECJ will decide whether or not the UK can reverse Article 50. The EU already stated this several weeks ago.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.0 -
IANAL but ffs come off it, they're not going to do that.david_herdson said:
Would it? Again, the obligation under Article 50 is on the member states to reach an agreement to facilitate the state that gave its intention to leave, to leave. A 99 year extension seems to run very contrary to that obligation.Philip_Thompson said:
A 99 year extension would work.david_herdson said:
It's not even absolutely clear that the ECJ would sign off an indefinite extension, which would be contrary to the obligations on all parties under Article 50 (i.e. that the withdrawing state was going to withdraw, and that the other states come to an agreement with it. I'm not saying that such an argument would be upheld but it could be credibly made. That said, there aren't any sanctions that the ECJ could apply.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.
I said earlier that the ECJ had no sanction available. Actually, it does. It could simply rule the decision contrary to the Treaties and, therefore, invalid.0 -
It seems to run very contrary to that obligation but so too does eg Sweden not joining the Euro despite a Treaty obligation to do so by not joining ERM II. A unanimously-agreed 99 year extension falls clearly within the parameters of Article 50 in being an extension agreed by unanimity - there not being any maximum extension permitted.david_herdson said:
Would it? Again, the obligation under Article 50 is on the member states to reach an agreement to facilitate the state that gave its intention to leave, to leave. A 99 year extension seems to run very contrary to that obligation.Philip_Thompson said:
A 99 year extension would work.david_herdson said:
It's not even absolutely clear that the ECJ would sign off an indefinite extension, which would be contrary to the obligations on all parties under Article 50 (i.e. that the withdrawing state was going to withdraw, and that the other states come to an agreement with it. I'm not saying that such an argument would be upheld but it could be credibly made. That said, there aren't any sanctions that the ECJ could apply.edmundintokyo said:
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.Benpointer said:
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.DavidL said:I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.
I said earlier that the ECJ had no sanction available. Actually, it does. It could simply rule the decision contrary to the Treaties and, therefore, invalid.0 -
If JC becomes PM in the post Brexit wonderland, as seems likely, then he'll be able to blame everything that goes wrong on the May/Davis deal.TheJezziah said:Putting my incredibly biased hat on, I would rather the Tories agree some kind of deal on Brexit first at least, that way if Corbyn then changes anything he won't be up against the mythical incredible deal the Conservatives could have produced but an actual workable one.
0 -
And it'll be very difficult for whatever Brexit apologist that then leads the Tories to disagree. At the following election the Tories will look back on 1997 as a relative triumph.Dura_Ace said:
If JC becomes PM in the post Brexit wonderland, as seems likely, then he'll be able to blame everything that goes wrong on the May/Davis deal.TheJezziah said:Putting my incredibly biased hat on, I would rather the Tories agree some kind of deal on Brexit first at least, that way if Corbyn then changes anything he won't be up against the mythical incredible deal the Conservatives could have produced but an actual workable one.
0 -
On the one hand it will be nice to have the excuse on the other I am worried about actual damage from Brexit which does derails his/Labours plans. Ideally (but still somewhat realistically) it is a soft Brexit which has little affect but could still be referred to and blamed which would get put onto the Conservatives mostly.
The idea that this was all a big Tory mistake would be a useful one to get going as a long term thought (not that it might not anyway) especially considering the age profile of those for and against EU membership.0 -
As we begin heading towards the local elections, we may start tp see some jitters from both Lab and Tories - Tories if their campaign slides (hard to call) and Lab may start to divide over SEM and ECJ - for me the Q is how long the Lab truce lasts both with JC and over the ambiguity on BREXIT.....
Lab should do well in the locals but Qs will soon start to appear about how long Labour supporters will tolerate the wall sitting approach.
Lib Dems may use the locals as a spring board - in the absence of byelections they need a straw to clutch at0 -
If there was a referendum on the negotiated deal vs WTO, by the time the campaign finished there would be an easy win for WTO. Once it is explained that the deal that we are trying to sign means paying away 40bn in return for nothing at all, with the option of two years more talks on trade which may or may not lead to an acceptable outcome but in all likelihood will involve us being tied into not only EU product regulation but immigration, taxation and social policy, I would be amazed if the 'Yes' campaign would even get 40%. The only thing protecting May and the civil service sell out underway is that the average person has not yet focussed on how bad the deal will be.MarqueeMark said:So, endorse the negotiated deal - or we're out on WTO terms? Really? Explain that - and see how many people can be arsed.
Remain was well ahead of Leave until the campaign, because under scrutiny it became obvious that the establishment position that the UK could not survive without the EU was oddly short of any facts. The more discussion there is, the worse the EU looks.0 -
We had an election last year and only 7.4% of voters supported the Lib Dems who promised another referendum, their lowest share of the vote since 1959.
If we held another referendum, the question should be exit on the terms the Tories have negotiated or have a clean break from the EU.0 -
On the big issue of the week - just 17% want single sex events banned against 74% opposed. While the outrage bus fills up with hacks and twitterati the public just ain't bovvered.0
-
That will depend on from where the public pressure for a vote is coming from, at the time. Labour are the swing politicians and it will probably depend upon them.old_labour said:We had an election last year and only 7.4% of voters supported the Lib Dems who promised another referendum, their lowest share of the vote since 1959.
If we held another referendum, the question should be exit on the terms the Tories have negotiated or have a clean break from the EU.0 -
It's odd. Both main parties have a policy of hard Brexit. There is no leader of a continuity Remain camp. Yet despite all these institutional advantages for Leave, the public stubbornly refuses to unite behind Brexit.
You'd think that Leavers would be concerned that they are so unconvincing. But instead they spend the thread pondering how to permanently exclude the voice of what opinion polls tell us is currently the larger part of the population.0 -
Neither of the main parties have a hard Brexit policy. Quite the opposite in fact.AlastairMeeks said:It's odd. Both main parties have a policy of hard Brexit. There is no leader of a continuity Remain camp. Yet despite all these institutional advantages for Leave, the public stubbornly refuses to unite behind Brexit.
You'd think that Leavers would be concerned that they are so unconvincing. But instead they spend the thread pondering how to permanently exclude the voice of what opinion polls tell us is currently the larger part of the population.0 -
They both want to leave the EU, the EEA and the single market, things that two years ago Leavers were decrying as absurd fear-mongering. That's a hard Brexit policy.felix said:
Neither of the main parties have a hard Brexit policy. Quite the opposite in fact.AlastairMeeks said:It's odd. Both main parties have a policy of hard Brexit. There is no leader of a continuity Remain camp. Yet despite all these institutional advantages for Leave, the public stubbornly refuses to unite behind Brexit.
You'd think that Leavers would be concerned that they are so unconvincing. But instead they spend the thread pondering how to permanently exclude the voice of what opinion polls tell us is currently the larger part of the population.0 -
Alleged. The poll follows a week of media and politico outrage none so bizarre as the Yvette Cooper/Whitehouse grandstanding in the H/C. The public are spectacularly unimpressed.Foxy said:
Perhaps single sex events are fine when no molestation takes place...felix said:On the big issue of the week - just 17% want single sex events banned against 74% opposed. While the outrage bus fills up with hacks and twitterati the public just ain't bovvered.
0 -
Labour's policy is basically tag along and wait and see.AlastairMeeks said:
They both want to leave the EU, the EEA and the single market, things that two years ago Leavers were decrying as absurd fear-mongering. That's a hard Brexit policy.felix said:
Neither of the main parties have a hard Brexit policy. Quite the opposite in fact.AlastairMeeks said:It's odd. Both main parties have a policy of hard Brexit. There is no leader of a continuity Remain camp. Yet despite all these institutional advantages for Leave, the public stubbornly refuses to unite behind Brexit.
You'd think that Leavers would be concerned that they are so unconvincing. But instead they spend the thread pondering how to permanently exclude the voice of what opinion polls tell us is currently the larger part of the population.
May may indeed be waiting for the right moment to call the bluff of the hard Brexiters. Or she may not.0 -
Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?0
-
No a hard Brexit would be no Deal and WTO. The free movement issue always meant leaving the single market and EU. You are correct that both want to leave the EU following the vote .... to er leave the EU.AlastairMeeks said:
They both want to leave the EU, the EEA and the single market, things that two years ago Leavers were decrying as absurd fear-mongering. That's a hard Brexit policy.felix said:
Neither of the main parties have a hard Brexit policy. Quite the opposite in fact.AlastairMeeks said:It's odd. Both main parties have a policy of hard Brexit. There is no leader of a continuity Remain camp. Yet despite all these institutional advantages for Leave, the public stubbornly refuses to unite behind Brexit.
You'd think that Leavers would be concerned that they are so unconvincing. But instead they spend the thread pondering how to permanently exclude the voice of what opinion polls tell us is currently the larger part of the population.0 -
I'm afraid that as the next word wasn't 'nonexistent' your credibility dwindled rapidly from that moment on.IanB2 said:Labour's policy is...
Both parties have no clue where to go next. The advantage Labour have is they don't have to make a decision. Given that even their best Shadow Cabinet ministers (Macdonnell, Starmer) are weaker than their Tory equivalents (how's that for a stinging indictment?) that is just as well for them.0 -
Looks like Dan Jarvis on the way out - wants to be S Yorkshire Mayor.0
-
You're a victim of anchoring. The loonies have successfully persuaded you that because Britain isn't doing something clinically insane it is not pursuing an extreme line. It is.felix said:
No a hard Brexit would be no Deal and WTO. The free movement issue always meant leaving the single market and EU. You are correct that both want to leave the EU following the vote .... to er leave the EU.AlastairMeeks said:
They both want to leave the EU, the EEA and the single market, things that two years ago Leavers were decrying as absurd fear-mongering. That's a hard Brexit policy.felix said:
Neither of the main parties have a hard Brexit policy. Quite the opposite in fact.AlastairMeeks said:It's odd. Both main parties have a policy of hard Brexit. There is no leader of a continuity Remain camp. Yet despite all these institutional advantages for Leave, the public stubbornly refuses to unite behind Brexit.
You'd think that Leavers would be concerned that they are so unconvincing. But instead they spend the thread pondering how to permanently exclude the voice of what opinion polls tell us is currently the larger part of the population.0 -
No.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
0 -
1. Any man committing sexual assault or anyone other offence should be prosecuted.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
2. Would I be seen dead at an event like that? No. Does that mean I want to stop such events? No. I am a liberal. Unlike you.0 -
There's also an apparent correlation between those who repeatedly decry the abuse of young girls in Rotherham, and who are oddly unconcerned about the abuse of young women in the President's Club.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
I get the impression that some people are less concerned about the welfare of girls and women, and more concerned about the identity of the abusers.
It's a different angle on 'identity politics', I suppose ...0 -
Ouch!tlg86 said:
1. Any man committing sexual assault or anyone other offence should be prosecuted.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
2. Would I be seen dead at an event like that? No. Does that mean I want to stop such events? No. I am a liberal. Unlike you. 0 -
Lol.AlastairMeeks said:
You're a victim of anchoring. The loonies have successfully persuaded you that because Britain isn't doing something clinically insane it is not pursuing an extreme line. It is.felix said:
No a hard Brexit would be no Deal and WTO. The free movement issue always meant leaving the single market and EU. You are correct that both want to leave the EU following the vote .... to er leave the EU.AlastairMeeks said:
They both want to leave the EU, the EEA and the single market, things that two years ago Leavers were decrying as absurd fear-mongering. That's a hard Brexit policy.felix said:
Neither of the main parties have a hard Brexit policy. Quite the opposite in fact.AlastairMeeks said:It's odd. Both main parties have a policy of hard Brexit. There is no leader of a continuity Remain camp. Yet despite all these institutional advantages for Leave, the public stubbornly refuses to unite behind Brexit.
You'd think that Leavers would be concerned that they are so unconvincing. But instead they spend the thread pondering how to permanently exclude the voice of what opinion polls tell us is currently the larger part of the population.0 -
Question:
Why has Alison Saunders not yet resigned?
All rape cases to be 'urgently' reviewed over evidence disclosure
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42841346
This could possibly be the end of the CPS in its current form. Imagine if they lose ten appeals because of illegal non-disclosure, which now seems likely given the extent of this scandal.0 -
I don't think anyone tried to ban the Presidents Club. The sleazebags who ran a party centred around industrial scale misogyny closed it down themselves, when it was exposed to the disinfection of public scrutiny.tlg86 said:
1. Any man committing sexual assault or anyone other offence should be prosecuted.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
2. Would I be seen dead at an event like that? No. Does that mean I want to stop such events? No. I am a liberal. Unlike you.
0 -
If remain had won, I suspect leave would be ahead in the polls by now.0
-
Industrial scale? Source please.Foxy said:
I don't think anyone tried to ban the Presidents Club. The sleazebags who ran a party centred around industrial scale misogyny closed it down themselves, when it was exposed to the disinfection of public scrutiny.tlg86 said:
1. Any man committing sexual assault or anyone other offence should be prosecuted.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
2. Would I be seen dead at an event like that? No. Does that mean I want to stop such events? No. I am a liberal. Unlike you.0 -
I think it's the other way round. I think those who decry, not just the abuse, but the whole concept of scantily dressed young girls being paid to attend an event like that, go out of their way to defend Muslims. Jess Phillips being a prime example.JosiasJessop said:
There's also an apparent correlation between those who repeatedly decry the abuse of young girls in Rotherham, and who are oddly unconcerned about the abuse of young women in the President's Club.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
I get the impression that some people are less concerned about the welfare of girls and women, and more concerned about the identity of the abusers.
It's a different angle on 'identity politics', I suppose ...
Just to signal my virtue, I think the Americans have it right. We should be handing out 175 year sentences to serial sex offenders.0 -
As the BBC article notes, It also [raises] the question of why the review is confined to rape and sexual assault cases when many believe the problems of disclosure are systemic.ydoethur said:Question:
Why has Alison Saunders not yet resigned?
All rape cases to be 'urgently' reviewed over evidence disclosure
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42841346
This could possibly be the end of the CPS in its current form. Imagine if they lose ten appeals because of illegal non-disclosure, which now seems likely given the extent of this scandal.0 -
What a horrible post.Dura_Ace said:I've been invited to two funerals this month. I suspect both were leavers so the invitations went straight in the fire but it does illustrate how the reaper's merciless scythe is shifting the demographics.
0 -
Brexit is going really well...
Theresa May has abandoned preparations for a third high-profile speech on Brexit for fear of widening cabinet splits over Britain’s future relationship with the EU.
The prime minister had planned to provide more detail of the so-called “end state” in an address next month on the same scale as those given at Lancaster House and in Florence.
Downing Street has called a halt to the preparations, however, fuelling fears that differences in her cabinet are irreconcilable.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-ditches-big-brexit-speech-in-effort-to-curb-cabinet-rows-csqqnj0fw
So well, we can't even talk about it.
Awesome!!0 -
Wot, no David Herdson thread ?
*shrugs back under the duvet *0 -
Again no.MarqueeMark said:
No.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
Typical Remaniac smear tactics from Mike.0 -
What is Williamson up to? All these friendly stories about his past. Surely the number of people that actually think he could be Tory leader must be tiny, but the help he is getting in the press suggests otherwise.0
-
Theresa May is over but her premiership lingers. This is not a point of difference between Leavers like my Times colleague Iain Martin, who said as much two days ago in these pages, and Remain-leaning commentators like myself. I doubt it is a point of difference between the chancellor, Philip Hammond, who in the snow of Davos this week went off-piste in his hopes of hugging the EU and its institutions close, and the ultra Leaver Jacob Rees-Mogg, who this week told The Times that “close alignment” with the EU was “unacceptable” and has warned Mrs May that her red lines were going “a bit pink”.
Hard Brexit has its supporters. The soft version does too. We all agree she is going to have to choose. We all suspect she’ll prove temperamentally incapable of doing so. Meanwhile the moment when our government must declare its hand in trade negotiations with Europe cannot be delayed much longer. Pure logic suggests that nothing could then stop irreconcilable internal Tory tension breaking the party. Messy experience suggests that strong leadership sometimes does reconcile the irreconcilable. All observation suggests she cannot provide it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-well-aimed-speech-could-topple-mrs-may-dbjqgd00m0 -
I have noticed a correlation, though, between those who are very quick to mount their moral high horse over the Presidents Club and those were happy to have the unacceptable behaviour of Lord Rennard and Cyril Smith kept very, very, very quiet...
0 -
The FT.tlg86 said:
Industrial scale? Source please.Foxy said:
I don't think anyone tried to ban the Presidents Club. The sleazebags who ran a party centred around industrial scale misogyny closed it down themselves, when it was exposed to the disinfection of public scrutiny.tlg86 said:
1. Any man committing sexual assault or anyone other offence should be prosecuted.MikeSmithson said:Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
2. Would I be seen dead at an event like that? No. Does that mean I want to stop such events? No. I am a liberal. Unlike you.
The Presidents Club was misogynistic in planning, organisation and execution. Women were excluded as guests, recruited as hostesses to titillate the guests and required to comply with non disclosure agreements.
The drunk drivers defence doesn't wash. It is perfectly possible to oppose other misogynistic activities too.0 -
Mr Ace,
Times winged chariot also increases the number of Leavers. As the snowflakes meet the hard reality of life, their politics change slowly, becoming more realistic. Maturity helps them see the world as it is. It's a well-known trend.
In a few years, you'll look back on your current ideas with embarrassment. Don't worry, it's a natural part of growing up.0 -
That's why I think this could be fatal for the CPS.DecrepitJohnL said:
As the BBC article notes, It also [raises] the question of why the review is confined to rape and sexual assault cases when many believe the problems of disclosure are systemic.ydoethur said:Question:
Why has Alison Saunders not yet resigned?
All rape cases to be 'urgently' reviewed over evidence disclosure
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42841346
This could possibly be the end of the CPS in its current form. Imagine if they lose ten appeals because of illegal non-disclosure, which now seems likely given the extent of this scandal.
Pure anecdote. Some years ago the Head of History at one of the universities in Leeds was prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving. He was guilty, as it happens. However, the police withheld CCTV footage from the defence in the hope that he would try to lie his way out and get an increased sentence for aggravating circumstances.
Fortunately he had the sense to admit what he had been doing (although he would have been more sensible to concentrate on his driving in the first place) and the ploy failed. But it did make me wonder a bit about the CPS if they were that slippery.
Now we find that they appear to be in effect falsifying evidence in a bid to get more convictions - which is extraordinary for the prosecution arm of a modern Western democracy. I thought we had left that behind with the age of the super grass.0
