Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited January 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov’s latest Brexit tracker – the monthly average trend chart and latest party splits

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.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    I imagine the lack of anything changing and many serious consequences has led to this, exacerbated by noisy sorts attacking the opposing side.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:
    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.

    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.)
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,534
    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.

    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.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    Have YouGov adjusted their sampling or weighting etc since the election? Are pre election and post election polls consistent?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832

    Have YouGov adjusted their sampling or weighting etc since the election? Are pre election and post election polls consistent?

    They are.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    edited January 3
    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.

    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.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,680
    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.

    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.)

    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831
    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    FPT


    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.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326
    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.

    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.

    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326
    FPT:
    DavidL said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    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.


    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.
    Thanks a lot.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    On topic I suspect the government will be mildly disappointed that they did not get a bigger boost from the first stage deal with the EU which should have allayed some of the hysteria. But I think Mike's assessment of very little movement is right.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
    Well, that's where it gets murky because I always thought if we left, that the decision would be irrevocable because (a) the EU would promptly go careering off on a different path and (b) because it was never very popular anyway hardly anybody would want to go back in. In which case, it would be the death of British euroscepticism because it would have ceased to be a concept. But clearly item (b) was wrong.

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    edited January 3
    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.



    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
    The facts that Leave voters tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, right wing, and live in unfashionable parts of the country, are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326
    Both sides have been dumping manure on each other for being stupid/traitors since the referendum. People are not likely to change their minds in these circumstances.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    edited January 3
    RoyalBlue said:

    Both sides have been dumping manure on each other for being stupid/traitors since the referendum. People are not likely to change their minds in these circumstances.

    +1 Not helpful in the long term either. Let alone the short.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    ydoethur said:

    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
    Well, that's where it gets murky because I always thought if we left, that the decision would be irrevocable because (a) the EU would promptly go careering off on a different path and (b) because it was never very popular anyway hardly anybody would want to go back in. In which case, it would be the death of British euroscepticism because it would have ceased to be a concept. But clearly item (b) was wrong.

    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.
    Unless we experience catastrophe, I expect that b) holds good as well.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,023
    edited January 3
    .

    "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!
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 268

    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
    I'm starting to understand why people think you're incredibly patronising
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Point of order: even if we could, and did, revoke Article 50 unilaterally, wouldn't that entail losing existing opt-outs and the rebate?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831
    ydoethur said:

    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
    Well, that's where it gets murky because I always thought if we left, that the decision would be irrevocable because (a) the EU would promptly go careering off on a different path and (b) because it was never very popular anyway hardly anybody would want to go back in. In which case, it would be the death of British euroscepticism because it would have ceased to be a concept. But clearly item (b) was wrong.

    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 idea that Euroscepticism would cease to be a concept is also wrong for the reason that a clean break is simply not possible, so if Brexit continues on its path, we'll still be dealing with the consequences for decades.

    Talking about 'full' federalism is also problematic because how do you define it? The Schulz plan is pure fantasy that is a legal impossibility.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326

    RoyalBlue said:

    Both sides have been dumping manure on each other for being stupid/traitors since the referendum. People are not likely to change their minds in these circumstances.

    +1 Not helpful in the long term either. Let alone the short.
    Absolutely. I personally will try to be less virulent in 2018, and stick to the facts and issues. This year will be exciting enough without indulging in unnecessary personal attacks.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831

    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
    I'm starting to understand why people think you're incredibly patronising
    And after all the work I've put in on the 'John Humphrys Should Retire' All Party Group... :(
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    ydoethur said:

    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
    Well, that's where it gets murky because I always thought if we left, that the decision would be irrevocable because (a) the EU would promptly go careering off on a different path and (b) because it was never very popular anyway hardly anybody would want to go back in. In which case, it would be the death of British euroscepticism because it would have ceased to be a concept. But clearly item (b) was wrong.

    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 idea that Euroscepticism would cease to be a concept is also wrong for the reason that a clean break is simply not possible, so if Brexit continues on its path, we'll still be dealing with the consequences for decades.

    Talking about 'full' federalism is also problematic because how do you define it? The Schulz plan is pure fantasy that is a legal impossibility.
    So is their plan for Brexit - so is ours. But we appear to be taking both of them seriously!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,520
    Over Christmas I met up with an old friend - the most right-wing person I know - and to my surprise he was spitting blood about Brexit and the Leavers (Rees-Mogg, Boris, the bloke who owns Wetherspoons all met with his ire). I tried to assuage him ('I'm sure they meant well', 'Perhaps it will turn out okay') but he wasn't having any of it. Not a happy man.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326

    Over Christmas I met up with an old friend - the most right-wing person I know - and to my surprise he was spitting blood about Brexit and the Leavers (Rees-Mogg, Boris, the bloke who owns Wetherspoons all met with his ire). I tried to assuage him ('I'm sure they meant well', 'Perhaps it will turn out okay') but he wasn't having any of it. Not a happy man.

    Interesting. Has he actually changed his mind about Brexit, or is he enraged by the actions of the people you mention, or both?
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,680

    Essexit said:

    I'd argue that's an anti-Brexit sentiment rather than a pro-EU one you're picking up on there.

    You're starting to understand why Brexit will be the death of British Euroscepticism.
    I'm starting to understand why people think you're incredibly patronising
    Ah, let him have his fun.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.



    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
    The facts that Leave voters tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, right wing, and live in unfashionable parts of the country, are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics.
    What is your profile?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    edited January 3
    @brendan16

    ""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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.



    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
    The facts that Leave voters tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, right wing, and live in unfashionable parts of the country, are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics.
    What is your profile?
    Middle class, middle aged, right wing, and living in an unfashionable part of the country.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    edited January 3

    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.

    The ECJ is where I think potential problems may arise. I have two key objections to it - (1) I happen to believe as a point of principle that everybody in the same country should be answerable to the same law and (2) more pertinently, the ECJ is both toothless and very prone to siding with whoever shouts the loudest. It is a weak and ineffectual court and certainly not something I would be willing to depend on. British courts by contrast are certainly not without their faults but have real teeth (witness the time they forced the government to bring back somebody who had been illegally deported - the ECJ for all their bluster could never have done that).

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831

    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.

    I think what's genuinely surprising is how muted the reaction to the various concessions has been, and how easily the pro-Brexit press has fallen in behind them. Will the MPs who think a full clean break is the only Brexit worth having really support a deal where the only realistic long-term outcome is a soft-Brexit or reversal?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    edited January 3
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.



    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
    The facts that Leave voters tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, right wing, and live in unfashionable parts of the country, are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics.
    What is your profile?
    Middle class, middle aged, right wing, and living in an unfashionable part of the country.
    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,520
    RoyalBlue said:

    Over Christmas I met up with an old friend - the most right-wing person I know - and to my surprise he was spitting blood about Brexit and the Leavers (Rees-Mogg, Boris, the bloke who owns Wetherspoons all met with his ire). I tried to assuage him ('I'm sure they meant well', 'Perhaps it will turn out okay') but he wasn't having any of it. Not a happy man.

    Interesting. Has he actually changed his mind about Brexit, or is he enraged by the actions of the people you mention, or both?
    I always had him down as an arch euro-sceptic. Perhaps he still is but sees the consequences of Brexit as being far worse - the EU's WWII to Brexit's Hitler so to speak.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    edited January 3

    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.

    I think what's genuinely surprising is how muted the reaction to the various concessions has been, and how easily the pro-Brexit press has fallen in behind them. Will the MPs who think a full clean break is the only Brexit worth having really support a deal where the only realistic long-term outcome is a soft-Brexit or reversal?
    I suspect that if there were be a change and JC were to ‘mastermind’ negotiations, even if exactly the same deals were struck, then said Press would be up in arms. In other words if it’s the Tories doing it, it must be, more or less OK!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited January 3
    What is interesting is that it is now Labour voters who are most split on Brexit, before the EU referendum when Cameron was still Tory leader and UKIP were still a force it was the Tories who were most split with 58% of Tories voting Leave and 63% of Labour voters voting Remain

    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.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    ydoethur said:

    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.

    The ECJ is where I think potential problems may arise. I have two key objections to it - (1) I happen to believe as a point of principle that everybody in the same country should be answerable to the same law and (2) more pertinently, the ECJ is both toothless and very prone to siding with whoever shouts the loudest. It is a weak and ineffectual court and certainly not something I would be willing to depend on. British courts by contrast are certainly not without their faults but have real teeth (witness the time they forced the government to bring back somebody who had been illegally deported - the ECJ for all their bluster could never have done that).

    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.

    The ECJ generally deals in areas that are of almost no concern to voters. That's where its role is likely to continue. It'll be along the lines of the UK courts seeking non-binding guidance on issues pertaining to regulatory equivalence. There'll be some kind of joint body to deal with more contentious issues like citizens' rights.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    edited January 3

    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.

    I think what's genuinely surprising is how muted the reaction to the various concessions has been, and how easily the pro-Brexit press has fallen in behind them. Will the MPs who think a full clean break is the only Brexit worth having really support a deal where the only realistic long-term outcome is a soft-Brexit or reversal?
    I would say you're thinking of that the wrong way. Their approach would appear to be the Michael Collins one - that it gives us 'the freedom to win freedom.' That is to say, allows us to diverge, but more gradually and less damagingly than a hard instant break, which they probably understand now isn't possible and isn't likely to happen anyway.

    Whether they're right about the outcome or not is a very different question.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    HYUFD said:

    What is interesting is that it is now Labour voters who are most split on Brexit, before the EU referendum when Cameron was still Tory leader and UKIP were still a force it was the Tories who were most split.

    Now just 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.

    There's been a shake out, as Labour Leave voters shift rightward, and Conservative Remain voters shift leftward.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619

    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.

    I think what's genuinely surprising is how muted the reaction to the various concessions has been, and how easily the pro-Brexit press has fallen in behind them. Will the MPs who think a full clean break is the only Brexit worth having really support a deal where the only realistic long-term outcome is a soft-Brexit or reversal?

    At some point the right wing press will realise what is going on and will start to give serious space to the Tory right that does want a clean break. That will present May's resolve with its toughest test. The choice remains a simple, binary one: we do as the EU requires to get the deal we need, or we jump off the cliff. It seems pretty clear that the choice has already been made. Everything else is just posing.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    The ECJ generally deals in areas that are of almost no concern to voters. That's where its role is likely to continue. It'll be along the lines of the UK courts seeking non-binding guidance on issues pertaining to regulatory equivalence. There'll be some kind of joint body to deal with more contentious issues like citizens' rights.

    THat's not what the EU appears to be asking for:

    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.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831
    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    1. Very few remainers are trying to frustrate the referendum result
    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,667
    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court
    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.



    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
    The facts that Leave voters tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, right wing, and live in unfashionable parts of the country, are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics.
    What is your profile?
    Middle class, middle aged, right wing, and living in an unfashionable part of the country.
    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.
    Garbage. Anyone who thinks Adonis et al are anything other than entitled and partisan is living in the clouds themselves.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    TOPPING said:

    Other than that, great post.

    'That aside, did you enjoy the play, Mrs Lincoln?'
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    felix said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court
    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.



    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
    The facts that Leave voters tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, right wing, and live in unfashionable parts of the country, are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics.
    What is your profile?
    Middle class, middle aged, right wing, and living in an unfashionable part of the country.
    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.
    Garbage. Anyone who thinks Adonis et al are anything other than entitled and partisan is living in the clouds themselves.
    Ain't democracy great?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    What is interesting is that it is now Labour voters who are most split on Brexit, before the EU referendum when Cameron was still Tory leader and UKIP were still a force it was the Tories who were most split.

    Now just 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.

    There's been a shake out, as Labour Leave voters shift rightward, and Conservative Remain voters shift leftward.
    Rest assured, this Labour Leaver is not shifting rightward!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    ydoethur said:

    The ECJ generally deals in areas that are of almost no concern to voters. That's where its role is likely to continue. It'll be along the lines of the UK courts seeking non-binding guidance on issues pertaining to regulatory equivalence. There'll be some kind of joint body to deal with more contentious issues like citizens' rights.

    THat's not what the EU appears to be asking for:

    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.

    Specifically on citizens' rights. But that'll be part of a wider final agreement, which is a few years off yet (and until we get to that point the ECJ will have a direct role, no doubt, as the transition time is extended). The EU's aim with citizens' rights is not to ensure a role for the ECJ but to protect the status of EU citizens.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,417
    TOPPING said:

    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.

    Be fair, he scores three out of four!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    It's the EU who want a customs border, not the UK. It will be on their side of the line if it exists at all.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,417

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    In the cloud, of course.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Topping, benevolent dictatorship is, as we know, the best system:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/benevolent-dictators.html
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    What is interesting is that it is now Labour voters who are most split on Brexit, before the EU referendum when Cameron was still Tory leader and UKIP were still a force it was the Tories who were most split.

    Now just 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.

    There's been a shake out, as Labour Leave voters shift rightward, and Conservative Remain voters shift leftward.
    Rest assured, this Labour Leaver is not shifting rightward!
    Give it time.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642

    TOPPING said:

    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.

    Be fair, he scores three out of four!
    Yes that is true; but for an Old Gower, perhaps he thinks an unfashionable part of the country means Swiss Cottage which isn't all that bad.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.

    Be fair, he scores three out of four!
    Yes that is true; but for an Old Gower, perhaps he thinks an unfashionable part of the country means Swiss Cottage which isn't all that bad.
    I live in Luton.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,534

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.

    Be fair, he scores three out of four!
    Yes that is true; but for an Old Gower, perhaps he thinks an unfashionable part of the country means Swiss Cottage which isn't all that bad.
    I live in Luton.
    My dear, the noise and the people.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.

    Be fair, he scores three out of four!
    Yes that is true; but for an Old Gower, perhaps he thinks an unfashionable part of the country means Swiss Cottage which isn't all that bad.
    I live in Luton.
    My dear, the noise and the people.
    Edit: plus it shows how upside down and chippy you Brexiters are. Who on earth determines that Luton is unfashionable, and who gives a flying ****?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Specifically on citizens' rights. But that'll be part of a wider final agreement, which is a few years off yet (and until we get to that point the ECJ will have a direct role, no doubt, as the transition time is extended). The EU's aim with citizens' rights is not to ensure a role for the ECJ but to protect the status of EU citizens.

    Sorry, I'm not willing to buy that. The ECJ offers as much practical protection to any EU citizen in this country or elsewhere as a paper wall in a hurricane. The only reason its ineptitude is not more problematic at the moment is because national courts can enforce its rulings. Where they fail to do so, as in France over BSE, it is simply ignored.

    Therefore, not only should it not be used but I suspect an ulterior motive in bringing it forward. Neither is really an acceptable outcome.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can't opt for free trade. We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    edited January 3
    ydoethur said:

    The ECJ is where I think potential problems may arise. I have two key objections to it - (1) I happen to believe as a point of principle that everybody in the same country should be answerable to the same law and (2) more pertinently, the ECJ is both toothless and very prone to siding with whoever shouts the loudest. It is a weak and ineffectual court and certainly not something I would be willing to depend on. British courts by contrast are certainly not without their faults but have real teeth (witness the time they forced the government to bring back somebody who had been illegally deported - the ECJ for all their bluster could never have done that).

    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.

    Most people misunderstand the role of the ECJ. It isn't a court that issues judgments on individual cases, nor is it a stage in the appeals process (eg Appeal Court then Supreme Court then ECJ). In fact it provides advice to national courts on the interpretation of EU law. It is then up to national courts to actually interpret the law as it affects the case in front of them, to make their judgments and apply the appropriate sanctions. In an ideal world the intervention of the ECJ makes no difference to any outcomes because national courts are interpreting the law correctly and consistently, as they are anyway required to do. In practice the ECJ advice is given to ensure that legal consistency everywhere the law applies.

    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.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,534

    Mr. Topping, benevolent dictatorship is, as we know, the best system:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/benevolent-dictators.html

    By wiseacres such as Adonis.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642

    Mr. Topping, benevolent dictatorship is, as we know, the best system:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/benevolent-dictators.html

    If you're willing to nominate me, I'm up for it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.

    Be fair, he scores three out of four!
    Yes that is true; but for an Old Gower, perhaps he thinks an unfashionable part of the country means Swiss Cottage which isn't all that bad.
    I live in Luton.
    My dear, the noise and the people.
    Edit: plus it shows how upside down and chippy you Brexiters are. Who on earth determines that Luton is unfashionable, and who gives a flying ****?
    It's chief attractions are that it's very close to the North Hertfordshire countryside, which is beautiful, and that house prices are much cheaper than in London.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,417
    TOPPING said:

    .... Who on earth determines that Luton is unfashionable...

    It's a rare point of complete agreement between Leavers and Remainers.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831
    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
    Even if we created free ports or free trade zones, we would still need to enforce regular customs checks for goods crossing the UK border for compliance with WTO rules of origin and so on.

    This flow chart explains quite well how it works in Singapore:

    https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/importing-goods/quick-guide-for-importers
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,534

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can't opt for free trade. We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Of course we can, with a unilateral declaration that customs barriers will be abolished. That's what a sovereign nation can do.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    so not the typical Leaver profile you described. Just as with @brendan16 you are trying to create a narrative whereby Remainers are patronising which allows you to deflect from the implications of your vote.

    Be fair, he scores three out of four!
    Yes that is true; but for an Old Gower, perhaps he thinks an unfashionable part of the country means Swiss Cottage which isn't all that bad.
    I live in Luton.
    My dear, the noise and the people.
    Edit: plus it shows how upside down and chippy you Brexiters are. Who on earth determines that Luton is unfashionable, and who gives a flying ****?
    It's chief attractions are that it's very close to the North Hertfordshire countryside, which is beautiful, and that house prices are much cheaper than in London.
    Sounds lovely.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. W, I do not consider Lord Adonis to be the equal of Quintus Fabius Maximus.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,667
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    What is interesting is that it is now Labour voters who are most split on Brexit, before the EU referendum when Cameron was still Tory leader and UKIP were still a force it was the Tories who were most split.

    Now just 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.

    There's been a shake out, as Labour Leave voters shift rightward, and Conservative Remain voters shift leftward.
    Rest assured, this Labour Leaver is not shifting rightward!
    Give it time.
    I agreed with sandy twice last week and I ain 't a lefty - it's already happening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited January 3
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    What is interesting is that it is now Labour voters who are most split on Brexit, before the EU referendum when Cameron was still Tory leader and UKIP were still a force it was the Tories who were most split.

    Now just 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.

    There's been a shake out, as Labour Leave voters shift rightward, and Conservative Remain voters shift leftward.
    Since 2015 some Tory Remainers have moved to Labour or the LDs and some Labour Leavers and over half of UKIP voters to the Tories and 20% of UKIP voters to Labour
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,297
    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    geoffw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Curse of not only the new thread but of the multiple flipping thread:

    DavidL said:

    I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.

    I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.

    I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.



    Snip

    (I wonder if that will be third time lucky.)
    Riding two horses at once you old welsh wizard.
    Actually it's three at once, and I think even old Lloyd George himself would have struggled with that! (Anyway I understand he preferred whores to horses.):wink:

    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.
    Some anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t about Britain’s membership of the EU per se, but the opinion of a sizeable number of Remainers on their fellow electors who voted the other way.
    The facts that Leave voters tend to be working class, middle aged and elderly, right wing, and live in unfashionable parts of the country, are perceived as morally reprehensible characteristics.
    I fulfill 3 of those 4 criteria and voted Remain. Am I morally reprehensible, self-loathing or merely confused?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Have they ? When ? Link ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    FF43 said:

    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.

    So again we come back to the point that what is proposed is a role for which the ECJ is wholly unsuited and where it has demonstrated its feebleness.

    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?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    ydoethur said:

    Specifically on citizens' rights. But that'll be part of a wider final agreement, which is a few years off yet (and until we get to that point the ECJ will have a direct role, no doubt, as the transition time is extended). The EU's aim with citizens' rights is not to ensure a role for the ECJ but to protect the status of EU citizens.

    Sorry, I'm not willing to buy that. The ECJ offers as much practical protection to any EU citizen in this country or elsewhere as a paper wall in a hurricane. The only reason its ineptitude is not more problematic at the moment is because national courts can enforce its rulings. Where they fail to do so, as in France over BSE, it is simply ignored.

    Therefore, not only should it not be used but I suspect an ulterior motive in bringing it forward. Neither is really an acceptable outcome.

    I am not sure I get that. The ECJ's role will remain unchanged for as long as the UK is part of the EU and, beyond that, transitioning to its new relationship with the EU. As the UK recognises and respects the rule of law, enforcement of ECJ rulings will not be an issue during this time. The interesting bit will be where we go to post-Brexit under the new relationship. My guess is that as we will need to agree a high degree of regulatory convergence in order to retain the level of access to the single market we require, some kind of ostensibly non-binding referral system will be adopted; while for issues like citizens' rights - which affect UK citizens living in the EU, of course, just as much as EU citizens living in the UK - there will be some kind of joint body set up to handle the relatively few disputes that are so contentious they cannot be dealt with at a national level.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
    This is the taking back control by having no customs borders Leave argument again, isn't it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,038
    edited January 3

    TOPPING said:

    .... Who on earth determines that Luton is unfashionable...

    It's a rare point of complete agreement between Leavers and Remainers.
    The hanging gardens of Frederick St :) http://goo.gl/NEdFHy
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    TGOHF said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Have they ? When ? Link ?

    See Michael Gove and the regulation of the way in which animals are treated. That will need to be policed. Thus, there will be a regulatory barrier for the import of animals and animal products.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    edited January 3
    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    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.

    So again we come back to the point that what is proposed is a role for which the ECJ is wholly unsuited and where it has demonstrated its feebleness.

    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?
    The ECJ has always been a service that issues advice to national courts. You could argue it is feeble because it trusts the national courts to do their jobs, but you can't at the same time accuse it of being overbearing.

    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.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,520

    Brexit may elicit the odd snarky comment at work or a bit of piss-taking by clients in foreign lands, but apart from that the only time I ever talk about it is on PB. It's really not a big issue for voters. The consequences are and will be, of course, but that is different. The debate now should not be on stopping Brexit - which is a waste of time and energy - but on ensuring the softest, bounciest version possible. It'll be worse than what we have, but is a lot better than the alternative We are on the road to leaving in name only essentially - with some fluff to cover the government's embarrassments on free movement, the ECJ and regulatory equivalence - but Mrs May struggles to ignore the siren sound of the right wing press so we must all remain on our guards.

    I think what's genuinely surprising is how muted the reaction to the various concessions has been, and how easily the pro-Brexit press has fallen in behind them. Will the MPs who think a full clean break is the only Brexit worth having really support a deal where the only realistic long-term outcome is a soft-Brexit or reversal?

    At some point the right wing press will realise what is going on and will start to give serious space to the Tory right that does want a clean break. That will present May's resolve with its toughest test. The choice remains a simple, binary one: we do as the EU requires to get the deal we need, or we jump off the cliff. It seems pretty clear that the choice has already been made. Everything else is just posing.

    Yes. I suspect that was why Boris was leaking that he'd been 'hung out to dry' by the rest of the Cabinet the other day. When the cliff-edgers realize what's happening and throw the inevitably wobbly, he can step forward as their champion and saviour.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 747

    Mr. Topping, benevolent dictatorship is, as we know, the best system:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/benevolent-dictators.html


    It's all fine until someone disagrees with your benevolence.

    Then you have to shoot them.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941

    TGOHF said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Have they ? When ? Link ?

    See Michael Gove and the regulation of the way in which animals are treated. That will need to be policed. Thus, there will be a regulatory barrier for the import of animals and animal products.

    But you said tarriffs...

    And it isn't a hard border - just a restriction on selling goats that have been beaten.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can't opt for free trade. We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Of course we can, with a unilateral declaration that customs barriers will be abolished. That's what a sovereign nation can do.

    That is not opting for free trade. Trade is a two way thing involving imports and exports. If we do not impose tariffs or regulatory obstacles but others do there is no free trade. There is just us making the unilateral decision to give no country anywhere in the world any incentive to agree any kind of trade deal with us.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
    This is the taking back control by having no customs borders Leave argument again, isn't it.
    Choosing to have no border is a choice which isn't available now.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831
    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
    This is the taking back control by having no customs borders Leave argument again, isn't it.
    There's a strong overlap between certain Brexiteer positions and the 'freemen on the land' movement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Have they ? When ? Link ?

    See Michael Gove and the regulation of the way in which animals are treated. That will need to be policed. Thus, there will be a regulatory barrier for the import of animals and animal products.

    But you said tarriffs...

    And it isn't a hard border - just a restriction on selling goats that have been beaten.

    No, I said: "We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers ..."

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,534

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can't opt for free trade. We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Of course we can, with a unilateral declaration that customs barriers will be abolished. That's what a sovereign nation can do.

    That is not opting for free trade. Trade is a two way thing involving imports and exports. If we do not impose tariffs or regulatory obstacles but others do there is no free trade. There is just us making the unilateral decision to give no country anywhere in the world any incentive to agree any kind of trade deal with us.

    It maximises the welfare of consumers in our country. If other countries want to penalise their consumers that's their business.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    Good luck selling French goods in Britain if we don't impose any tarrifs on their goods and they slap one on ours.

    Suspect new world wines may see an uptick in sales.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Have they ? When ? Link ?

    See Michael Gove and the regulation of the way in which animals are treated. That will need to be policed. Thus, there will be a regulatory barrier for the import of animals and animal products.

    But you said tarriffs...

    And it isn't a hard border - just a restriction on selling goats that have been beaten.

    No, I said: "We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers ..."

    Do you think the EU will be keen to unilaterally add a new layer of tariffs on Uk goods ?
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 147


    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.

    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)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
    This is the taking back control by having no customs borders Leave argument again, isn't it.
    Choosing to have no border is a choice which isn't available now.
    We are in a trade arrangement now whereby we have helped to formulate an agreement on a mutual external border. And you are saying that we would be more in control by not having a border, thereby letting anyone who fancies come into our country. Bizarre.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
    This is the taking back control by having no customs borders Leave argument again, isn't it.
    Choosing to have no border is a choice which isn't available now.
    We are in a trade arrangement now whereby we have helped to formulate an agreement on a mutual external border. And you are saying that we would be more in control by not having a border, thereby letting anyone who fancies come into our country. Bizarre.
    Who said anything about free movement of people ?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,421
    Can anyone explain why the average age of Brexit diplomats is just 31 years of age?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-civil-servants-average-age-is-31-thm7j5xwc
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can't opt for free trade. We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Of course we can, with a unilateral declaration that customs barriers will be abolished. That's what a sovereign nation can do.

    That is not opting for free trade. Trade is a two way thing involving imports and exports. If we do not impose tariffs or regulatory obstacles but others do there is no free trade. There is just us making the unilateral decision to give no country anywhere in the world any incentive to agree any kind of trade deal with us.

    It maximises the welfare of consumers in our country. If other countries want to penalise their consumers that's their business.
    In the age of both tabloids and social media - it would be a brave country with a positive trade balance that wanted to add unilateral tarrifs.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Have they ? When ? Link ?

    See Michael Gove and the regulation of the way in which animals are treated. That will need to be policed. Thus, there will be a regulatory barrier for the import of animals and animal products.

    But you said tarriffs...

    And it isn't a hard border - just a restriction on selling goats that have been beaten.

    No, I said: "We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers ..."

    Do you think the EU will be keen to unilaterally add a new layer of tariffs on Uk goods ?

    If we become a third country and have no specific trade agreement with the EU, the EU will follow WTO rules. That means tariffs and customs controls. The UK will then have to decide if it wishes to follow WTO rules and will have to accept the consequences if it decides not to.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.
    This is the taking back control by having no customs borders Leave argument again, isn't it.
    Choosing to have no border is a choice which isn't available now.
    We are in a trade arrangement now whereby we have helped to formulate an agreement on a mutual external border. And you are saying that we would be more in control by not having a border, thereby letting anyone who fancies come into our country. Bizarre.
    Who said anything about free movement of people ?
    So let goods come in but not people. Policed how, exactly?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,619
    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    stevef said:

    The reason why that there is a blip towards Brexit was wrong in the polls is that the Remain case has been dominating the media for months on end, Project fear has been in full swing, and the Leave arguments have not been made.

    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.

    Right, so where do we put the customs border with Ireland?
    We opt for free trade, so it's up to the EU to erect a customs border to protect their precious industries.

    We can't opt for free trade. We can opt not to impose any tariffs or regulatory barriers for people who import goods and services, but that is completely different; and is, of course, something that the government has already ruled out.

    Of course we can, with a unilateral declaration that customs barriers will be abolished. That's what a sovereign nation can do.

    That is not opting for free trade. Trade is a two way thing involving imports and exports. If we do not impose tariffs or regulatory obstacles but others do there is no free trade. There is just us making the unilateral decision to give no country anywhere in the world any incentive to agree any kind of trade deal with us.

    It maximises the welfare of consumers in our country. If other countries want to penalise their consumers that's their business.

    It does not maximise the welfare of consumers who have jobs which may be affected by imports or exports.

This discussion has been closed.