The guy from YouGuv has just been on the telly. He claims that two thirds of Labour voters voted for remain, in the referendum. He said that many of their leave voters have now changed their minds. It was 2 to 1 in favour of remain, it is now 4 to 1 in favour of remain. So 80% of Labour voters now favour remain. In the North of England the vote in the referendum was around 60/40 in favour of leave, this have now moved to 50/50.
One in five Leave voters think it is worse than staying A curious side-effect of the unpopularity of Theresa May’s Brexit deal is ardent Leavers proclaiming that we’d be better off Remaining than accepting it. Conservative figures such as Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood have all said that the deal would be worse for the nation than continued EU membership. Now a new YouGov survey reveals that Leave voters are heavily split on whether the Prime Minister’s negotiated deal is preferable to our current situation. Only one in three people who backed Brexit in 2016 (36%) think that exiting the EU on the terms laid out in May’s deal would be better than remaining a member state.
A further 21% see it as being about equal, while a further 22% think leaving on such terms would actively be worse than if we ended up remaining after all. By contrast, Remain voters unsurprisingly tend to think that the deal would be worse than staying in the EU, with more than two thirds (69%) holding this view. Only 7% think it is about the same as continuing EU membership, and just 5% think it is better than staying in.
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
A further 21% see it as being about equal, while a further 22% think leaving on such terms would actively be worse than if we ended up remaining after all. By contrast, Remain voters unsurprisingly tend to think that the deal would be worse than staying in the EU, with more than two thirds (69%) holding this view. Only 7% think it is about the same as continuing EU membership, and just 5% think it is better than staying in.
That Headline is misleading in the extreme.
"Only one third of Leave voters think May's deal is better than leaving"
Leaving to 1 side that 36% is not 1/3, it completely ignored the people who thought it was the same or didn't know. It would have been just as accurate (or equally misleading) for the Headline to be:-
"Only 1 in 5 Leave voters oppose May's deal"
Is this YouGov, or senationalist tabloid journalism?
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public. </blockquote
I think that as the options become more specific, then the referendum result becomes less clear.
For instance it appears that many leave voters would prefer to remain rather than accept the PMs deal.
Also if the options were to accept no deal or remain, many leave voters would choose remain.
It is possible that Parliament may be faced with one of the above choices.
A referendum on this choice was resolve the matter.
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
I think this supports an argument that I have made a number of times. The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority. I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa. A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
UK car production collapses 18% as industry warns of 'clear and present danger' from no-deal Brexit
UK car exports have slumped by one-fifth and production has fallen for an eighth successive month, prompting industry figures to warn of a “clear and present danger” from a no-deal Brexit. The number of cars leaving UK factories slumped 18.2 per cent to 120,600 in January compared to the same month a year ago, the industry’s trade body said. The decline was driven by a 21.4 per cent decline in exports, which account for most of production. Output destined for the EU was down by one-fifth while car exports to China collapsed 72 per cent, the latest figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) showed. Manufacturing for the UK market fell by a more modest 4.8 per cent. It comes after Honda announced it would shut its Swindon factory in 2021 with 3,500 jobs to go. Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover and Ford have all laid out plans to cut jobs or shift production overseas in recent months, citing a variety of reasons from Brexit to falling demand for diesel cars.
EU immigration falls to lowest in a decade in growing 'Brexodus'
Net migration from the EU has plummeted to its lowest level in almost a decade, according to official figures. The latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show net migration, the number of new arrivals minus the number of people leaving, stood at around 57,000 in the year up to September 2018. More citizens went home than arrived in Britain over the past year from the eight central and eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004, including Poland and Lithuania. Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said: “Britain is not as attractive to EU migrants as it was a couple of years ago. “That may be because of Brexit-related political uncertainty, the falling value of the pound making UK wages less attractive, or simply the fact that job opportunities have improved in other EU countries.” But immigration from outside the EU is at its highest level since 2004, with more workers and students arriving over the past five years. An estimated 261,000 people arrived in Britain from outside the EU.
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
I think this supports an argument that I have made a number of times. The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority. I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa. A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
I don't think it supports your argument at all. Agree re end result will only please a minority. However, every single outcome is only ever going to appease a minority. Perhaps if Remainers had been bothered to raise the difficulties BEFORE the vote we might not be where we are. Amazing how many important arguments were missed out entirely. A "better" question? The question was a simple one, its just that the answers were more complex than anyone told the public. Have to say that was a case of Remain failing to identify its arguments, or communicate them to the voters. Feel that Cameron in particular should be reflecting on whether he could have done more, rather than putting his self-interest ahead of his beliefs. Not sure how a more complex question would have helped. And please don't expect the Opposition to help the Government govern this country. The clue is in the name. If 1 single Remainer Conservative (Cameron? Major? as examples) had done half as much as Brown (an ex-PM, free of Party shackles) in 2016 in relation to campaigning, we wouldn't be in this mess.
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
I think this supports an argument that I have made a number of times. The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority. I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa. A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
I don't think it supports your argument at all. Agree re end result will only please a minority. However, every single outcome is only ever going to appease a minority. Perhaps if Remainers had been bothered to raise the difficulties BEFORE the vote we might not be where we are. Amazing how many important arguments were missed out entirely. A "better" question? The question was a simple one, its just that the answers were more complex than anyone told the public. Have to say that was a case of Remain failing to identify its arguments, or communicate them to the voters. Feel that Cameron in particular should be reflecting on whether he could have done more, rather than putting his self-interest ahead of his beliefs. Not sure how a more complex question would have helped. And please don't expect the Opposition to help the Government govern this country. The clue is in the name. If 1 single Remainer Conservative (Cameron? Major? as examples) had done half as much as Brown (an ex-PM, free of Party shackles) in 2016 in relation to campaigning, we wouldn't be in this mess.
A referendum which resulted in remaining would appear to support the current majority wishes. I am not certain that all the difficulties were apparent prior to the referendum.
The fact that a large number of leave voters would prefer to remain rather than choose the other of two leave options, underlines the inadequacy of the question.
I would concur with Danny Dyers view of David Cameron.
I fully blame the Tories for where we are now.
However this clearly doesn't absolve Corbyn for his fence sitting, ineffective leadership, ambiguity, the interests of his voters, and members, nor the interests of the country.
We are clearly left with three options, we can leave with a deal, leave with no deal, or remain via a referendum.
Had this been the choice for the referendum, I would assume remain would have won, and we would have avoided the current mess.
These are very clear and distinct choices.
A very high percentage of leave voters would choose to remain instead of the other leave option.
The biggest difference in the campaigns was that the leave campaign was a 21st century very effective campaign, while remain belonged in the 1960s.
With your three options in mind, I think a massive percentage of remain voters would not be in favour of option 2.
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
I think this supports an argument that I have made a number of times. The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority. I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa. A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
I don't think it supports your argument at all. Agree re end result will only please a minority. However, every single outcome is only ever going to appease a minority. Perhaps if Remainers had been bothered to raise the difficulties BEFORE the vote we might not be where we are. Amazing how many important arguments were missed out entirely. A "better" question? The question was a simple one, its just that the answers were more complex than anyone told the public. Have to say that was a case of Remain failing to identify its arguments, or communicate them to the voters. Feel that Cameron in particular should be reflecting on whether he could have done more, rather than putting his self-interest ahead of his beliefs. Not sure how a more complex question would have helped. And please don't expect the Opposition to help the Government govern this country. The clue is in the name. If 1 single Remainer Conservative (Cameron? Major? as examples) had done half as much as Brown (an ex-PM, free of Party shackles) in 2016 in relation to campaigning, we wouldn't be in this mess.
This could well come down to a choice between, no deal or a referendum. I assume that if this situation arose you would choose a referendum, rather than a disaster, despite your respect for the referendum result.
Conservative MP Peter Bone denies Brexiteers are split
There is no evidence that attitudes among Eurosceptic MPs towards Theresa May's Brexit deal are softening, Conservative MP Peter Bone has said. The Eurosceptic MP, who has spoken in favour of leaving the EU without a deal, wants the Irish backstop clause to be ditched. But he would "wait and see" what the negotiations produced. Speculation about a split in the Brexiteer ranks was sparked by comments from Jacob Rees-Mogg. Mr Rees-Mogg, who is chairman of the European Research Group of Brexiteer Tories, said he disagreed with those who were demanding changes to the legal text of the EU withdrawal agreement. He said he would accept an appendix to the legal document.
Writing in The Daily Mail, he said: "I really do not mind what form of words the Attorney General and the EU agree on regarding the backstop - as long as it expires before the next election and has the same legal status as the deal." Other leading figures in the ERG, including deputy chairman Steve Baker, have previously dismissed the legal annex to Mrs May's agreement being negotiated by Attorney General Geoffrey Cox as insufficient. Mrs May is continuing negotiations with the EU to try to seek assurances to address MPs' concerns, after her Brexit deal was overwhelmingly rejected by MPs last month. She is still in talks with Brussels over the Irish backstop policy in her plan - which aims to prevent a hard border returning to the island of Ireland - and has assured MPs they will get to vote again on the deal by 12 March - just 17 days before the UK's scheduled leaving date. The PM's spokesman said on Thursday there had been progress in talks with the EU, but there was still a significant amount of work to do.
ERG member and former Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers told the BBC that she could not support the prime minister's deal with the backstop in its current form. "Essentially it locks us in as an EU satellite, obeying their customs and regulatory rules without having a say over them, so I don't think it's really leaving," she said. "That's why I have very significant problems with it."
When asked whether there was a split of opinion within the ERG on a solution to the backstop issue, Ms Villiers said there was "undoubtedly a spectrum of views within the Conservatives on this". "We're all looking to try to find compromises. Whatever the prime minister comes back with from Brussels we'll look at it seriously." She said if the deal is changed enough to allay her concerns about being permanently locked into an arrangement with the EU, "then that is something possibly I could support". "But it would have to be legally binding treaty change." Peter Bone, who is not a member of the ERG, said: "We'll wait and see whether that negotiation is successful or not. If she can deliver that I think she'll get a deal." But he added: "If the backstop in any way is in place, in other words that could keep us permanently in the EU, then Mrs May's deal just will not go through Parliament."
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
I think this supports an argument that I have made a number of times. The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority. I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa. A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
I don't think it supports your argument at all. Agree re end result will only please a minority. However, every single outcome is only ever going to appease a minority. Perhaps if Remainers had been bothered to raise the difficulties BEFORE the vote we might not be where we are. Amazing how many important arguments were missed out entirely. A "better" question? The question was a simple one, its just that the answers were more complex than anyone told the public. Have to say that was a case of Remain failing to identify its arguments, or communicate them to the voters. Feel that Cameron in particular should be reflecting on whether he could have done more, rather than putting his self-interest ahead of his beliefs. Not sure how a more complex question would have helped. And please don't expect the Opposition to help the Government govern this country. The clue is in the name. If 1 single Remainer Conservative (Cameron? Major? as examples) had done half as much as Brown (an ex-PM, free of Party shackles) in 2016 in relation to campaigning, we wouldn't be in this mess.
A referendum which resulted in remaining would appear to support the current majority wishes. I am not certain that all the difficulties were apparent prior to the referendum.
The fact that a large number of leave voters would prefer to remain rather than choose the other of two leave options, underlines the inadequacy of the question.
I would concur with Danny Dyers view of David Cameron.
I fully blame the Tories for where we are now.
However this clearly doesn't absolve Corbyn for his fence sitting, ineffective leadership, ambiguity, the interests of his voters, and members, nor the interests of the country.
We are clearly left with three options, we can leave with a deal, leave with no deal, or remain via a referendum.
Had this been the choice for the referendum, I would assume remain would have won, and we would have avoided the current mess.
These are very clear and distinct choices.
A very high percentage of leave voters would choose to remain instead of the other leave option.
The biggest difference in the campaigns was that the leave campaign was a 21st century very effective campaign, while remain belonged in the 1960s.
With your three options in mind, I think a massive percentage of remain voters would not be in favour of option 2.
The "current majority wishes" are very clear from the 2016 referendum.
Remainer MPs would much rather focus on lies by the winners than look at the total lack of facts/arguments in their own campaign.
It is often the role of any Opposition (of any Party) to watch Govt make a hash of things.
Your "3 options" do not seem to include accepting the vote of the last referendum.
You cannot, in a civilised country, annul a vote by changing the question because you do not like the answer. That's why single issue referenda should be avoided.
People were given 2 very clear choices. Deal with it.
Don't agree that a "massive majority2 would reject my option 2-it is merely to consider any such thing on its merits, rather than reject something before even looking at it. Yet again you are rejecting something entirely different-accept that people would not vote for something that left them no say about such changes.
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
I think this supports an argument that I have made a number of times. The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority. I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa. A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
I don't think it supports your argument at all. Agree re end result will only please a minority. However, every single outcome is only ever going to appease a minority. Perhaps if Remainers had been bothered to raise the difficulties BEFORE the vote we might not be where we are. Amazing how many important arguments were missed out entirely. A "better" question? The question was a simple one, its just that the answers were more complex than anyone told the public. Have to say that was a case of Remain failing to identify its arguments, or communicate them to the voters. Feel that Cameron in particular should be reflecting on whether he could have done more, rather than putting his self-interest ahead of his beliefs. Not sure how a more complex question would have helped. And please don't expect the Opposition to help the Government govern this country. The clue is in the name. If 1 single Remainer Conservative (Cameron? Major? as examples) had done half as much as Brown (an ex-PM, free of Party shackles) in 2016 in relation to campaigning, we wouldn't be in this mess.
This could well come down to a choice between, no deal or a referendum. I assume that if this situation arose you would choose a referendum, rather than a disaster, despite your respect for the referendum result.
If they were the only 2 options, I would prefer a referendum. But I would despise any politician who took the other choices away.
This is just tosh. It is exactly this sort of biased reporting from Government that caused the problem in the first place.
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave 2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army 3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
I think this supports an argument that I have made a number of times. The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority. I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa. A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
I don't think it supports your argument at all. Agree re end result will only please a minority. However, every single outcome is only ever going to appease a minority. Perhaps if Remainers had been bothered to raise the difficulties BEFORE the vote we might not be where we are. Amazing how many important arguments were missed out entirely. A "better" question? The question was a simple one, its just that the answers were more complex than anyone told the public. Have to say that was a case of Remain failing to identify its arguments, or communicate them to the voters. Feel that Cameron in particular should be reflecting on whether he could have done more, rather than putting his self-interest ahead of his beliefs. Not sure how a more complex question would have helped. And please don't expect the Opposition to help the Government govern this country. The clue is in the name. If 1 single Remainer Conservative (Cameron? Major? as examples) had done half as much as Brown (an ex-PM, free of Party shackles) in 2016 in relation to campaigning, we wouldn't be in this mess.
A referendum which resulted in remaining would appear to support the current majority wishes. I am not certain that all the difficulties were apparent prior to the referendum.
The fact that a large number of leave voters would prefer to remain rather than choose the other of two leave options, underlines the inadequacy of the question.
I would concur with Danny Dyers view of David Cameron.
I fully blame the Tories for where we are now.
However this clearly doesn't absolve Corbyn for his fence sitting, ineffective leadership, ambiguity, the interests of his voters, and members, nor the interests of the country.
We are clearly left with three options, we can leave with a deal, leave with no deal, or remain via a referendum.
Had this been the choice for the referendum, I would assume remain would have won, and we would have avoided the current mess.
These are very clear and distinct choices.
A very high percentage of leave voters would choose to remain instead of the other leave option.
The biggest difference in the campaigns was that the leave campaign was a 21st century very effective campaign, while remain belonged in the 1960s.
With your three options in mind, I think a massive percentage of remain voters would not be in favour of option 2.
The "current majority wishes" are very clear from the 2016 referendum.
Remainer MPs would much rather focus on lies by the winners than look at the total lack of facts/arguments in their own campaign.
It is often the role of any Opposition (of any Party) to watch Govt make a hash of things.
Your "3 options" do not seem to include accepting the vote of the last referendum.
You cannot, in a civilised country, annul a vote by changing the question because you do not like the answer. That's why single issue referenda should be avoided.
People were given 2 very clear choices. Deal with it.
Don't agree that a "massive majority2 would reject my option 2-it is merely to consider any such thing on its merits, rather than reject something before even looking at it. Yet again you are rejecting something entirely different-accept that people would not vote for something that left them no say about such changes.
I am not certain the majority are still in favour of leaving.
Both sides blame the other side, rather than accept criticism for their own campaigns.
I think it is incumbent on an opposition party to at least play a role in Parliament.
Two of the three options do respect the referendum result. As the vote was merely to leave. Then leaving with a deal, or no deal comply with this.
I am offering a referendum as a solution to the current mess.
I have dealt with it. Parliament hasn't.
I only felt that a massive majority would not vote for your option 2, as it was an argument used heavily by the leave campaign, and there always has been a majority against joining the Euro. This majority could surely only have increased since the bale outs. I don't think that much support for a European army would be found in this country.
I also think that a major benefit of a second referendum has the advantage of retaining our current benefits, which may not be available if we rejoined in the future. This negates your option 2 to a certain extent.
Going back to the referendum is not necessarily helpful to the position we find ourselves in today.
There are definitely a few more twists and turns yet to come.
Comments
He claims that two thirds of Labour voters voted for remain, in the referendum.
He said that many of their leave voters have now changed their minds.
It was 2 to 1 in favour of remain, it is now 4 to 1 in favour of remain.
So 80% of Labour voters now favour remain.
In the North of England the vote in the referendum was around 60/40 in favour of leave, this have now moved to 50/50.
A curious side-effect of the unpopularity of Theresa May’s Brexit deal is ardent Leavers proclaiming that we’d be better off Remaining than accepting it.
Conservative figures such as Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood have all said that the deal would be worse for the nation than continued EU membership.
Now a new YouGov survey reveals that Leave voters are heavily split on whether the Prime Minister’s negotiated deal is preferable to our current situation.
Only one in three people who backed Brexit in 2016 (36%) think that exiting the EU on the terms laid out in May’s deal would be better than remaining a member state.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/02/19/only-third-leave-voters-think-mays-deal-beats-stay
A further 21% see it as being about equal, while a further 22% think leaving on such terms would actively be worse than if we ended up remaining after all.
By contrast, Remain voters unsurprisingly tend to think that the deal would be worse than staying in the EU, with more than two thirds (69%) holding this view. Only 7% think it is about the same as continuing EU membership, and just 5% think it is better than staying in.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-
It presupposes that it is "democratic" both to split the Leave vote in 2, while pretending that everyone who wants to Remain is of 1 mind.
you might as well have 3 options saying:-
1. Leave
2. Remain and be open-minded on further EU integration on the Euro and a Joint Army
3. Remain but insist that there is no further non-trade integration
Ooh, look. 600 seats for leave.
The minute you start changing the original question (In or Out) you get a different answer. And pretending otherwise is just duping the public.
"Only one third of Leave voters think May's deal is better than leaving"
Leaving to 1 side that 36% is not 1/3, it completely ignored the people who thought it was the same or didn't know. It would have been just as accurate (or equally misleading) for the Headline to be:-
"Only 1 in 5 Leave voters oppose May's deal"
Is this YouGov, or senationalist tabloid journalism?
The number of people who get what they think they voted for, will be very much in the minority.
I don't think that those that maintain that they voted for no deal will be unable to stomach the PMs deal, and vice versa.
A better question in the referendum would have avoided the current mess.
UK car exports have slumped by one-fifth and production has fallen for an eighth successive month, prompting industry figures to warn of a “clear and present danger” from a no-deal Brexit.
The number of cars leaving UK factories slumped 18.2 per cent to 120,600 in January compared to the same month a year ago, the industry’s trade body said.
The decline was driven by a 21.4 per cent decline in exports, which account for most of production. Output destined for the EU was down by one-fifth while car exports to China collapsed 72 per cent, the latest figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) showed. Manufacturing for the UK market fell by a more modest 4.8 per cent.
It comes after Honda announced it would shut its Swindon factory in 2021 with 3,500 jobs to go. Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover and Ford have all laid out plans to cut jobs or shift production overseas in recent months, citing a variety of reasons from Brexit to falling demand for diesel cars.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-car-production-collapses-18-002518484.html
Net migration from the EU has plummeted to its lowest level in almost a decade, according to official figures.
The latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show net migration, the number of new arrivals minus the number of people leaving, stood at around 57,000 in the year up to September 2018.
More citizens went home than arrived in Britain over the past year from the eight central and eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004, including Poland and Lithuania.
Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said: “Britain is not as attractive to EU migrants as it was a couple of years ago.
“That may be because of Brexit-related political uncertainty, the falling value of the pound making UK wages less attractive, or simply the fact that job opportunities have improved in other EU countries.”
But immigration from outside the EU is at its highest level since 2004, with more workers and students arriving over the past five years. An estimated 261,000 people arrived in Britain from outside the EU.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-immigration-falls-lowest-decade-brexit-bites-103531828.html
Agree re end result will only please a minority. However, every single outcome is only ever going to appease a minority.
Perhaps if Remainers had been bothered to raise the difficulties BEFORE the vote we might not be where we are. Amazing how many important arguments were missed out entirely.
A "better" question? The question was a simple one, its just that the answers were more complex than anyone told the public. Have to say that was a case of Remain failing to identify its arguments, or communicate them to the voters. Feel that Cameron in particular should be reflecting on whether he could have done more, rather than putting his self-interest ahead of his beliefs. Not sure how a more complex question would have helped.
And please don't expect the Opposition to help the Government govern this country. The clue is in the name. If 1 single Remainer Conservative (Cameron? Major? as examples) had done half as much as Brown (an ex-PM, free of Party shackles) in 2016 in relation to campaigning, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I am not certain that all the difficulties were apparent prior to the referendum.
The fact that a large number of leave voters would prefer to remain rather than choose the other of two leave options, underlines the inadequacy of the question.
I would concur with Danny Dyers view of David Cameron.
I fully blame the Tories for where we are now.
However this clearly doesn't absolve Corbyn for his fence sitting, ineffective leadership, ambiguity, the interests of his voters, and members, nor the interests of the country.
We are clearly left with three options, we can leave with a deal, leave with no deal, or remain via a referendum.
Had this been the choice for the referendum, I would assume remain would have won, and we would have avoided the current mess.
These are very clear and distinct choices.
A very high percentage of leave voters would choose to remain instead of the other leave option.
The biggest difference in the campaigns was that the leave campaign was a 21st century very effective campaign, while remain belonged in the 1960s.
With your three options in mind, I think a massive percentage of remain voters would not be in favour of option 2.
I assume that if this situation arose you would choose a referendum, rather than a disaster, despite your respect for the referendum result.
There is no evidence that attitudes among Eurosceptic MPs towards Theresa May's Brexit deal are softening, Conservative MP Peter Bone has said.
The Eurosceptic MP, who has spoken in favour of leaving the EU without a deal, wants the Irish backstop clause to be ditched.
But he would "wait and see" what the negotiations produced.
Speculation about a split in the Brexiteer ranks was sparked by comments from Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Mr Rees-Mogg, who is chairman of the European Research Group of Brexiteer Tories, said he disagreed with those who were demanding changes to the legal text of the EU withdrawal agreement.
He said he would accept an appendix to the legal document.
Writing in The Daily Mail, he said: "I really do not mind what form of words the Attorney General and the EU agree on regarding the backstop - as long as it expires before the next election and has the same legal status as the deal."
Other leading figures in the ERG, including deputy chairman Steve Baker, have previously dismissed the legal annex to Mrs May's agreement being negotiated by Attorney General Geoffrey Cox as insufficient.
Mrs May is continuing negotiations with the EU to try to seek assurances to address MPs' concerns, after her Brexit deal was overwhelmingly rejected by MPs last month.
She is still in talks with Brussels over the Irish backstop policy in her plan - which aims to prevent a hard border returning to the island of Ireland - and has assured MPs they will get to vote again on the deal by 12 March - just 17 days before the UK's scheduled leaving date.
The PM's spokesman said on Thursday there had been progress in talks with the EU, but there was still a significant amount of work to do.
ERG member and former Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers told the BBC that she could not support the prime minister's deal with the backstop in its current form.
"Essentially it locks us in as an EU satellite, obeying their customs and regulatory rules without having a say over them, so I don't think it's really leaving," she said.
"That's why I have very significant problems with it."
When asked whether there was a split of opinion within the ERG on a solution to the backstop issue, Ms Villiers said there was "undoubtedly a spectrum of views within the Conservatives on this".
"We're all looking to try to find compromises. Whatever the prime minister comes back with from Brussels we'll look at it seriously."
She said if the deal is changed enough to allay her concerns about being permanently locked into an arrangement with the EU, "then that is something possibly I could support".
"But it would have to be legally binding treaty change."
Peter Bone, who is not a member of the ERG, said: "We'll wait and see whether that negotiation is successful or not. If she can deliver that I think she'll get a deal."
But he added: "If the backstop in any way is in place, in other words that could keep us permanently in the EU, then Mrs May's deal just will not go through Parliament."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47400522
Remainer MPs would much rather focus on lies by the winners than look at the total lack of facts/arguments in their own campaign.
It is often the role of any Opposition (of any Party) to watch Govt make a hash of things.
Your "3 options" do not seem to include accepting the vote of the last referendum.
You cannot, in a civilised country, annul a vote by changing the question because you do not like the answer. That's why single issue referenda should be avoided.
People were given 2 very clear choices. Deal with it.
Don't agree that a "massive majority2 would reject my option 2-it is merely to consider any such thing on its merits, rather than reject something before even looking at it. Yet again you are rejecting something entirely different-accept that people would not vote for something that left them no say about such changes.
But I would despise any politician who took the other choices away.
Both sides blame the other side, rather than accept criticism for their own campaigns.
I think it is incumbent on an opposition party to at least play a role in Parliament.
Two of the three options do respect the referendum result. As the vote was merely to leave. Then leaving with a deal, or no deal comply with this.
I am offering a referendum as a solution to the current mess.
I have dealt with it. Parliament hasn't.
I only felt that a massive majority would not vote for your option 2, as it was an argument used heavily by the leave campaign, and there always has been a majority against joining the Euro. This majority could surely only have increased since the bale outs. I don't think that much support for a European army would be found in this country.
I also think that a major benefit of a second referendum has the advantage of retaining our current benefits, which may not be available if we rejoined in the future. This negates your option 2 to a certain extent.
Going back to the referendum is not necessarily helpful to the position we find ourselves in today.
There are definitely a few more twists and turns yet to come.