Why a new poll on another EU referendum tells a compelling story about Brexit’s demise - and why we’ll have to be patient, nonetheless There is some new YouGov polling on Brexit out this week, and like all polling on Brexit, it makes brutal reading for those still committed to the project that took Britain out of the European Union. When polling is done well, it tells a story. The tale this poll tells is one that Brexiters are choosing to ignore at their own political peril, for the moment at least.
People as a majority are saying 10 years for now, because it kicks the can down the road for all that conflict and offers a fig leaf for it coming right. But the situation now is a very bad starting point for a good outcome in 3 years, 6 years or 10 years. No German car industry is coming over the horizon to rescue little ingerlund. There's no USA trade deal or oven ready great deal as the Brexits promised. If there was a USA trade deal it would privatise much of the NHS, pushing up drug costs 3-4 times and replace UK farming and food systems with hormone, anti-biotic & carbon footprint ridden, trashing rural areas, as already discussed between US & UK officials. Who wants that?
Brexit will end it's days being the dog that barks in the night.
The problem with Nick and other peoples views that we need to rejoin and have a referendum but not for 10 years is that by then the economy will be much worse, people much poorer and public services much worse with all the additional deaths. That's the political reality of delay.
This is true, however these 10 years don't necessarily have to be a delay.
If the situation becomes increasingly pro EU over the course of the next parliament, then the election afterwards could very well already have rejoin negotiations in party manifestos.
This could give the new government enough electoral backing to start the process, leaving the referendum as a means to approve the outcome.
It wouldn't necessarily reduce the 10 years time frame of being out but it could very well be the end of that period.
The reason we had a Brexit referendum in the 1st place was that a group of rightwing conservatives were making the governing of the party impossible. Could it be possible that a pro Europe group makes governing so difficult that a new referendum is called earlier than we might think?
It might depend on the purpose of such a referendum.
If the referendum is seen as the starting point of a rejoin effort then such a group might very well want to have it earlier.
However, in most of the other EU countries which had a referendum on membership, they marked the end of the process. Their intent was to get electoral approval for the negotiated terms.
Effusively talking up the anodyne CPTPP was a major tactical error from the Brexiteers and Telegraph in particular. This clearly demonstrated to the public - who are normally busy getting on with their own lives and businesses, even if hampered by government incompetence - the stark hollowness of the Brexit offer. Perhaps indicative that a shrewd operator like Farage has had so little to say about it.
A further glaring error is when Brexiteers indicate very long time frames - eg 20/30/40 years - for the project to produce benefits. If you are asking people to look to the hereafter, you will inevitably start to be seen as a death cult.
People as a majority are saying 10 years for now, because it kicks the can down the road for all that conflict and offers a fig leaf for it coming right. But the situation now is a very bad starting point for a good outcome in 3 years, 6 years or 10 years. No German car industry is coming over the horizon to rescue little ingerlund. There's no USA trade deal or oven ready great deal as the Brexits promised. If there was a USA trade deal it would privatise much of the NHS, pushing up drug costs 3-4 times and replace UK farming and food systems with hormone, anti-biotic & carbon footprint ridden, trashing rural areas, as already discussed between US & UK officials. Who wants that?
Brexit will end it's days being the dog that barks in the night.
The problem with Nick and other peoples views that we need to rejoin and have a referendum but not for 10 years is that by then the economy will be much worse, people much poorer and public services much worse with all the additional deaths. That's the political reality of delay.
This is true, however these 10 years don't necessarily have to be a delay.
If the situation becomes increasingly pro EU over the course of the next parliament, then the election afterwards could very well already have rejoin negotiations in party manifestos.
This could give the new government enough electoral backing to start the process, leaving the referendum as a means to approve the outcome.
It wouldn't necessarily reduce the 10 years time frame of being out but it could very well be the end of that period.
The reason we had a Brexit referendum in the 1st place was that a group of rightwing conservatives were making the governing of the party impossible. Could it be possible that a pro Europe group makes governing so difficult that a new referendum is called earlier than we might think?
It might depend on the purpose of such a referendum.
If the referendum is seen as the starting point of a rejoin effort then such a group might very well want to have it earlier.
However, in most of the other EU countries which had a referendum on membership, they marked the end of the process. Their intent was to get electoral approval for the negotiated terms.
A pro EU group would not want to rush this.
I think around 65% becomes a tipping point - assuming most of them regard the issue as fundamentally important.
Effusively talking up the anodyne CPTPP was a major tactical error from the Brexiteers and Telegraph in particular. This clearly demonstrated to the public - who are normally busy getting on with their own lives and businesses, even if hampered by government incompetence - the stark hollowness of the Brexit offer. Perhaps indicative that a shrewd operator like Farage has had so little to say about it.
A further glaring error is when Brexiteers indicate very long time frames - eg 20/30/40 years - for the project to produce benefits. If you are asking people to look to the hereafter, you will inevitably start to be seen as a death cult.
I like the death cult concept. You get there with enough can kicking