According the most comprehensive polling, conducted by What UK Thinks (Prof. John Curtice), the British public are currently 52% Remain and 48% Leave. That is a slight increase for Leave compared to the polling conducted just before the EU Referendum.
In addition, according to the results of the recent EU Parilament elections, of those who voted, 55% voted remain in 2016 and 45% voted leave. However, even with a majority of former remain voters, the results of the election still gave a majority to pro-Brexit parties (Brexit Party, UKIP and Tories).
It seems that the number of people who would vote remain if they had a chance to vote again is shrinking as times goes by.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
I appreciate you answering.
If not the Brexit Party, who will those (who I believe to be the majority of the UK) who want to leave the EU, vote for?
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Yes, I would have.
Countless MPs have stood on manifestos, broken them, been deselected by their own constituencies, but refuse to hold a by-election, then they decide themselves what policies people voted them in on, knowing full well that it's a complete lie.
For TBP, people consider this single issue to take priority over everything else.
But you didn't answer my question. Do you believe they'll have no policies before the next GE?
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
You believe they'll have no policies before the next GE?
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Do you have any predictions on what they might be?
You have asked this question before and I have answered it two times, but you never responded. Please have a look.
I'll add one more thing though. What's the point in electing an MP from a Party with a manifesto that'll blatantly ignore it. Labour and the Tories both promised to leave the EU and end FoM in 2017, but have done a complete U-turn on it.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
The Brexit Party was just 681 votes short of Labour. Farage has just demonstrated that the Brexit Party, within 8 weeks of being formed, has the ability to be a serious electoral threat. Labour did win, but they lost a huge chunk of their vote share. All in all, disappointing that TBP didn't win, but an extremely good start.
Having an MP is good, but the impact of this election will be far greater. The phrase "Vote Tory, Get Corbyn" has now been solidified. Tory's now know that unless they back a WTO exit, they're gone.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
The hate that people show at these demostrations is concerning. This woman shows such vitriol:
As I said before, some people are becoming radicalised. They see people with different opinions as sub-human.
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
Wow! After digging a little more, this guy deleted his original crowdfunding video for the case. It stated:
“We have the research, the evidence, the legal team, the QC’s legal opinion on side, a persuasive legal argument on side, thousands of wonderful backers, as well as lots of journalists and national press, keen to cover the story.”
Where is all of this coming from?
Aside from the fact that the guy looks like a complete toff, complete with suit, unbuttoned shirt and pocket square when dressing casually, he has some shady business history....
Ball had run multiple enterprises before striking Boris-Gold, having incorporated himself as a company (with overdue accounts – a criminal offence under the Companies Act) and had another that was compulsorily struck off.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
After a little research, it seems that the private prosecutor who has brought this case forward, 29-year old Marcus Ball, deleted the following post from his own blog......
“Once these prosecutions have established that politicians did indeed lie to voters our next step will be to take other action to prevent Brexit. This may be in the form of a judicial review… We will also work to reverse Brexit and ensure our membership of the European Union is not lost”
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
I believe the intention behind all of this is to find a reason to declare the result of the referendum invalid, in order to hold another one.
I believe this is happening because Farage won the EU elections easily, that the result shows more people back leave than 3 years ago. He also now has a real shot at winning an election. Also, the Tories are being forced to choose a WTO candidate as leader. And finally, the timing of this whole thing is off. Why now? Why not any other time within the last 3 years. This whole situation smells very fishy. Just like the Gina Miller case, which was designed to stop Article 50 (by requiring an act of parliament when in fact Cameron said he would invoke it the day after the referendum).
I would like to ask you, if this ends up nullifying the result from 2016, would you think it fair to hold another referendum because of a court decision 3 years after based on an opinion that leave won because of the bus?
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Here is a link to a video of Farage stating all of this:
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
I feel your commment is missing some key details that I think are important.
Farage has stated numerous times that Johnson and the Leave campaign (not to be confused with Farage's Leave.EU campaign - which was completely separate) made a mistake by using the gross figure of £350 million. He added that the gross figure was actually higher than that (nearer to £385 million). In actual fact, after the rebate and the money that comes back from the EU, the figure that the UK gives the EU each day is £34 million (or £238 million a week). He said it would have been much better for Johnson and the Leave campaign to have used this net figure instead.
However, the one fact that everythone overlooks (or ignores because they don't want to acknowledge it) is that the wording on the bus was:
"We send the EU £350 million a week" "Let's fund our NHS instead"
At the time, the Leave campaign refused to say that this was a pedge because it was a referendum and not a general election. In addition, the word "Let's" doesn't mean "We will" or "We promise to", so you can't argue the point that it was a promise, it was just pointing out what could be done with the money.
Personally, I think the idea was good, but the figure was a bad choice. If they had used the net figure instead, there would be no problem with what was written.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
I would equally say that there a lots of people who don't live in the UK and who aren't even British who are pushing for remain.
We voted and a decision was made, but many people who don't live there and have no connection to the country are sticking their oar in trying to make out that we've changed our minds.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Do you think it will benefit the citizens of the 6 counties, who voted to remain*
No, they didn't. 2 of the 6 counties voted to leave (Down and Antrim), another 2 were around 50/50 and another 2 voted remain. Northern Ireland as a whole was 55.78%/44.22% Remain. Almost 45% didn't want to remain.
I wish you would stop pushing the idea that Northern Ireland is entirely remain, occupied by the British and wants to leave the UK.
You well know that Northern Ireland can call a referendum to rejoin the Republic of Ireland anytime it wants if there is a majority who want it. Stop trying to make out that Northern Ireland is a prisoner of England.
Just like the Falklands and Gibraltar, people in Northern Ireland have the right of self-determination.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
You've just contradicted yourself:
I do not agree with the last sentence: that a vote for a particular party is an unequivocal endorsement of that party's policies. Why not admit that the vote shows a swing towards remain and that a second referendum is needed? Are you afraid of what the result would be?
You've said that not every vote can be counted as an endorsement of a party's policy, but within the same breath you're saying that absolutely 100% of the votes for the Libs, Greens, CHUK, SNP, Plaid and Labour are in support of a second referendum. On yer bike!
Even John Curtice has said that many votes for the SNP were from leave voters who also want Scottish independence.
Why not admit that the vote shows a swing towards remain and that a second referendum is needed? Are you afraid of what the result would be?
Because Brexit supporting parties received more votes. The Remain vote in this election was completely fractured and even with adding the total vote for 5 political parties - who all have their own spending limits, campaigns, literature and policies - it was still less than the total votes in support of Brexit.
Time to deal with reality.
2014 - UKIP win EU elections
2015 - Conservative win election with promise of In/Out ref
2016 - Leave wins referendum
2017 - 80% of UK voters vote for parties that promise to deliever the result (leave) of ref
2019 - Brexit party wins the EU election and Brexit supporting parties have the highest share of the vote.
There is no point in having another referendum because when leave wins again, you won't accept the result.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
If we assume that 80% of....
If we assume that.....
Nah. Let's not try to manipulate the result through mental gymnastics.
Going by your logic, not all Green and Lib Dem voters are Remainers. In fact, let's do this for every party so that we can differentiate how many of the voters for each party support leaving or remaining.
It doesn't matter if some voters in each party don't agree with said party's policy of leave or remain. There are even some Brexit Party voters who are remainers. But if a person who wants to remain (or leave) votes for a party that has a leave (or remain) policy, they are accepting that their vote will be counted towards leaving.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
Given that the Brexit-leaning Conservative party only got 9.1% compared to the remain-leaning Labor party at 14.1%, it looks like a remain decision and an overwhelming rejection of "hard Brexit".
Haha. Keep telling yourself that. The Tories and Labour both still have an official policy of leaving the EU. I would admit that Labour's position before the EU election was completely unclear, so cannot be counted. But I find it amusing that in the last few weeks many commentors have gone on an on about how the Tories are 'Ultra' Brexiteers, and how Labour is allowing Brexit to happen. All of a sudden, because they don't like the result, they've changed their tune so that they can make the result say what they want.
Brexit supporting parties got the largest share of the vote. (BRX, UKIP, CONS)
Anti Brexit parties (LIB DEMS, CHUK, GRN, SNP, PLDC)
Labour = Official policy is leave, leader is a Brexiteer, didn't agree to a second referendum before the election, tried his best to avoid said second referendum, negotiated with Tories to arrange a deal to leave the EU, vast majority of MPs refuse to call the party a remain party.
And you consider Labour a remainer party? Come off it.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
I am not referring to the groupings (EFD etc) within the EU parliament. I am referring to the fact that the Brexit Party is the largest party in Europe with 29 seats. Germany's CDU has 28 seats and Italy's Lega has 28.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Nigel Farage's Brexit Party will now be the biggest party in the European Parliament with 29 seats.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
As well as saying that Labour voters, the majority of whom back remain, don't count and aren't real.
They are real, and they supported the Lib Dems today.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
The only way you can make the "Leave" figure higher than the "Remain" figure is if you count all Conservative votes as "Leave".
Scrote, I believe you are getting confused by mixing how people voted in 2016 with today's election. You can't even begin to take a 65/35% split of Labour because most of the those who want to remain, abandoned them today.
If you wanted to stop Brexit or want a second referendum, you wouldn't vote for the Conservatives or Labour today. You'd vote for Libs Dems, Greens or Change UK.
Funnily enough, the Brexit Party is a single-issue party. So, we can be absolutely confident that all of the people who voted for them want a WTO Brexit. The same cannot be said for Libs Dems or Greens. Some people will have voted for them because of tribal loyalty or because they care about the environment.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
Some follow-up info:
A representative from the Electoral Commission on Sky News earlier said that some EU citizens had been turned away at polling stations due to processing errors. (That is completely unfair - they should be allowed their vote. I guess the Electoral Commission should have spent more time preparing for the election rather than wasting time 'investigating' Brexit Party donations)
However, according to him, the amount turned away were only a 'handful'.
He also stated that around 2 million EU nationals who are eligible voters live in the UK, and that around 10% usually take part. (This will likely have added around 1 - 1.5% towards parties who support remaining)
Also, voter turnout for this election was higher in areas that voted remain in the 2016 referendum and was lower in areas which voted to leave.
Seems that there are already millions of voters who feel disenfranchised because of how the vote in 2016 has been ignored. This makes sense seeing as the Tory vote hadn't been completely absorbed by the Brexit Party or any others.
Finally, John Curtis mentioned that the SNP had had a high amount of votes from Scots who want to leave the EU, but also want Scottish independence.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Don't know why you think the Tories didn't state before the EU elections that they would carry out Brexit. You're trying to bend the results to your own liking.
You are trying to make a false comparison.
Yes, before the election, Libs, Change UK, Plaid, SNP and Greens stated that they want a second referendum. However, Brexit party, UKIP AND the Tories stated that they were opposed to a second ref.
Against second ref 44% (plus DUP when figure is known)
Pro second ref 40.3%
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
Results so far:
Brexit Party 31.6%, Conservatives 9.1%, UKIP 3.3%
Lib Dems 20.3%, Greens 12.1%, SNP 3.5%, Plaid 1.0% , Change UK 3.4%
Removing Labour from the equation means
-2 ( +5 / -7 )
I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out that when people complain about unelected people in Brussels they are referring to the commission and not the MEPs. At best it can be said that they are appointed instead of being elected.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
MEPs are elected, but they have no power to legislate or repeal law.
The EU commission has the power to legislate, but its members are not elected individually.
The European Parliament must approve the Commission as a whole but does not vote on individual commissioners.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Turnout for the EU election in the UK looks around 38% (nowhere near my overly-optimistic 55%).
Most of the Tories know that if they don't elect a Brexiteer who promotes WTO, they'll be sunk. However, I think even with them knowing this, they'll still choose another half-in and half-out candidate. Around two-thirds of the Tory party are remainers, and I can't see them going for a clean Brexit.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Can't trust anyting Boris says. He voted for May's surrender treaty when it was brought back to the house for the third time, it its worst form. He's only in this for himself.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
She tried her best....to derail Brexit. We were very lucky that she failed to pass the new EU treaty through parliament. Had she done that, she would have made the UK a slave state to the EU.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
The worst Prime Minister in British history. Full of nothing but sound bites. Pretending to be tone-deaf to the mood and wishes of the country, when in actual fact, she was just driving headlong with her own agenda (or those she serves). Completely out of her own depth and underqualified. Refused to relinquish the position for more than two years.
Yes, there is a certain admirable quality to stubbornness and determination, but there was nothing to admire about her recalcitrance. She tried her best to water-down Brexit, or make it as painful as possible so that the public would feel worn down and give up. She lost. Glad she's gone.
-1 ( +7 / -8 )