Is this the longest ever STW thread? I don’t remember ever seeing a 1000+ page thread before.

Now, as many as 53% of the British public back a second referendum, according to a poll by Survation for the Mail on Sunday.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/survation-poll-shows-public-is-overwhelmingly-opposed-to-hard-brexit-2017-6

its not untrue it depends on where you look if you must lecture us on truth, it would be beneficial if what you said was actually true.

Likewise whilst they may support your “getting on with it view” they also oppose the hard Brexit option they are getting on with. Again you can argue it either way.

Junkyard – and a clear majority now for a remain vote in a second referendum according to the polls

It is perfectly reasonable on big constitutional issues for the arguments to be laid before the people so they can make their own judgement based on their life experience.

I don’t think it is. I’m not qualified to make a judgement about it, and I’d wager that furious Brexit mentalists you see in Question Time audiences aren’t, either. Either way, it didn’t happen in this case, though, did it.

Because there is not a significant body of opinion calling for one.

I wouldn’t have particularly said there was a significant enough body of opinion calling for a referendum on EU membership. Propose a referendum on politician’s wages, then you’d see a significant body with a strong opinion.

@TJ Again it depends where you look the majority seem to both want to not have another even though they would vote to remain though the % wax and wane on both issues. I dont think there can be any debate that they do not support a hard brexit *

That said its not a definitive picture, we could all cherry pick if we wish but deep down I think none of want to claim surveys, given their recent results, are definitive proof of the view of the populus.

Its just arguing for the sake of it and accusing folk of lying when they only state one viewpoint

* Given 48% are against it anyway no view will get a majority but i am not even sure the majority of leavers want this and it was certainly not what they were arguing for pre referrenduum

Interesting article on who might be pulling the strings behind Hard Brexit:

Legatum

In its mission statement, Legatum openly admits its aim is to influence the British government on Brexit, and what it calls “other stakeholders”:

But why would a New Zealand private capital investment firm based in Dubai be so interested in a hard Brexit anyway?

Fortunately, the (far) right-wing US pressure group Heritage Foundation helpfully explains it all (to its readers in the US anyway):

Legatum Institute’s Special Trade Commission Advances Brexit Policies Designed to Promote Economic Freedom and Prosperity – for the United Kingdom and (Eventually) the World

According to the Heritage Foundation, Legatum is campaigning to set up a bilateral free trade agreement between the UK and the United States, which will “liberalise” UK regulations on the environment and workplace:

Yeah~ hard crash out, sidle up to America with all it entails. There’s absolutely no intention of a deal with the EU.

If people use the wail as a source it’s always good to check the underlying data as its v unlikely a wail headline will be true.

Sure enough – wrong (unless sur action haven’t published the new poll). They show that the majorly remain in favour of a soft Brexshit and that while there is a majority in favour of voting on the final deal, there is not support for another referendum. They also believe that our barely competent leader is much better placed than the leader of the opposition to lead us through the process – what a sorry state of affairs.

Still who needs facts or cares what people actually think?

…..they also said:

Voters disagree with Theresa May’s mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal”, with 58% against leaving the EU without a deal,

Nice and fresh

No deal better than bad deal 74%
Any deal better 26%

Tabs here

Most people don’t understand “no deal is better than a bad deal”.

It does sound quite good though.

“No deal is better than a bad deal” is meaningless- because yes, you absolutely could have a bad deal that’s worse than no deal. The question is how likely that is. So hypothetically, yes, no deal could be better than a bad deal. Practically, it probably won’t be.

I wonder why the Sky and Survation polls tell a different story from one another…?

Nationally representative sample of 1,023 Sky customers interviewed by SMS 11 October 2017. Data weighted to the profile of the population.

Given that by definition they are Sky customers I doubt the above statement is actually possible.
How do they account for the part of the population that thinks Sky is a work of evil and will not buy Sky products? A small but real part of the population that you cannot weight Sky customers to represent.

Am I correct in thinking a simple way to understand a hard Brexit is that it would be the equivalent of creating a border with passport controls and huge amounts of paperwork for moving goods and services between anything south of Lancashire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire and the rest of the country? I suppose there is also a difference between a free trade agreement like that between the eu and Canada and a single market. I am thinking free trade equals very low or nonexistent tariffs but with paperwork and a single market is like trading in the same country.

I wouldn’t have particularly said there was a significant enough body of opinion calling for a referendum on EU membership. Propose a referendum on politician’s wages, then you’d see a significant body with a strong opinion.

Consevatives had a manifesto pledge to hold a EU referendum in 2015, the LibDems did in 2010, and Labour has one with regarded to the EU constitution in 2005. Then there is UKIP winning the most seats in the European Parliament elections. That is more than sufficient, there is no other issue that I can think of that has that “traction”.

referendum on legality of homosexuality or a referendum on whether muslims should be allowed in the country.

In would bet you my house the UK would vote yes to to the first and no to the second.

That is more than sufficient, there is no other issue that I can think of that has that “traction

Meh, every manifesto has a pledge to fix the housing crisis, save the NHS and reform education.
Maybot had dropped most of her manifesto pledges b4 she got to the election last time!

The real driving force has been the press, pushing their EU myths for decades….

Consevatives had a manifesto pledge to hold a EU referendum in 2015, the LibDems did in 2010, and Labour has one with regarded to the EU constitution in 2005. Then there is UKIP winning the most seats in the European Parliament elections. That is more than sufficient, there is no other issue that I can think of that has that “traction”.

Seriously? Since when have manifestos been an accurate reflection of public opinion? How many of them proposed cutting MP wages?

The real driving force has been the press, pushing their EU myths for decades.

Yes – Murdoch and the Barclay brothers hate the EU and have waged a 20 year relentless propaganda campaign against it. that is the only driving force for leavng the EU

It gets better, so now the fact that governments promise something (leaving aside the result) doesn’t matter.

This story has some fantastic twists…

Since when have manifestos been an accurate reflection of public opinion?

The fact it is included in a manifesto evidences that there is a significant body of opinion, the referendum is then used to gauge public opinion. Whilst some people get grumpy about MPs salaries, there is little evidence of a widespread campaign, personally I think they are not overpaid.

The fact it is included in a manifesto evidences that there is a significant body of opinion

It absolutely does not.

Underpaid. Hence the quality we have

It gets better, so now the fact that governments promise something (leaving aside the result) doesn’t matter.

How, as a matter of interest, have you reached that conclusion?

It absolutely does not.

Send my regards to the fairies at the bottom of your garden.

Going to have to agree with Mefty there.

You don’t put lies in a manifesto unless you think they’ll appeal to someone – quite a lot of someones.

Send my regards to the fairies at the bottom of your garden.

They’re all on secondment working with the rest of the fae folk on the Tories NI border 😉

comedy gold in the delusions of the righties here.

You don’t put lies in a manifesto unless you think they’ll appeal to someone – quite a lot of someones.

At the risk of sounding cynical you put things in that will appear to certain sets without alienating others. Preferably things that you can justify not delivering on and that people who oppose it don’t imagine ever coming to pass so can be safely ignored unless there is political capital to be made from it.

A manifesto is what politicians want you to believe they want to do. Suggesting that a manifesto reflects majority public desires is……. hilarious.

. Suggesting that a manifesto reflects majority public desires is……. hilarious.

Well that’s all good because no one has.

Well that’s all good because no one has.

You kind of did.

Still all going swimmingly?

A powerful cross-party group of MPs is drawing up plans that would make it impossible for Theresa May to allow Britain to crash out of the EU without a deal in 2019. The move comes amid new warnings that a “cliff-edge” Brexit would be catastrophic for the economy.

Adam Marshall, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the business community “wants a transition agreed in principle and trade talks under way by the end of 2017. If there is not that clarity we will start to see the activation of contingency plans and likely significant impact on business investment.”

Yesterday, in a sign of growing desperation, it emerged that the Brexit secretary, David Davis, will travel to Brussels on Monday for unscheduled talks after the EU ruled that insufficient progress had been made for the two sides to begin future trade talks with Britain.

And the delusions of the levers made clear.

Around the same time,( 16 months ago) international trade secretary Liam Fox predicted that a free-trade deal with the EU, giving us continued access to EU markets after Brexit, “should be one of the easiest in human history”. His fellow Tory, the hardline Eurosceptic John Redwood, also saw no problems in realising this great reconfiguration of British interests around the world. “Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation,” he declared.

THM and his mates need feeding up from the look of this.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/Zp7xfb]DMIsKW0W4AAxmp3[/url] by james anderson, on Flickr

Sorry for making this about Scotland when the wider economy is a concern, but this should be of concern to us all:

Tories urged to publish UK’s secret report on extent of Brexit damage to Scotland

The article says:

“David Davis’s Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) yesterday said they couldn’t even confirm or deny such a paper existed, because it could impact “the national and regional economies by precipitating preemptive and reactionary assumptions from stakeholders in the respective regions”.

But Davis’ comments don’t stand scrutiny. If we assume that the position of the government is pro-Brexit, then logically, any report that shows that Brexit will have a positive effect would be publicised as it would strengthen the negotiating hand. Ergo, we can assume that the report does not show benefit for the North.

Makes sense?

Also:

“Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has already confirmed the existence of the analysis during a committee hearing on Wednesday.” Perhaps one of the reasons he’s being got rid of- too honest.

Plenty of nourishment thanks – especially with the amusing amuse-bouches ^

Meanwhile business/private sector simply continues to get on with things. The politicians can posture as much as they like, they merely react. In contrast, business gets on with life proactively.

We are, others should do the same.

cody – all too true. Its obvious that they don’t want to publish this stuff because it contradicts what they have been saying

“David Davis’s Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) yesterday said they couldn’t even confirm or deny such a paper existed, because it could impact “the national and regional economies by precipitating preemptive and reactionary assumptions from stakeholders in the respective regions”.

What a wonderful way of confirming that the report contains some unpalatable predictions about just how screwed those regional economies would be.

Still, don’t tell the kids where they’ll be living after the divorce, they’re better off not knowing how little they’re getting for Christmas. 🙂

Adam Marshall, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the business community “wants a transition agreed in principle and trade talks under way by the end of 2017. If there is not that clarity we will start to see the activation of contingency plans and likely significant impact on business investment.”