Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Thread Split! Culture Cup Rules!

alfie wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Yeah that's a good point. Revoking article 50 doesn't have to mean no Brexit ever.

An excellent point  

It may seem a bit backward looking but frankly with the Conservative right wing hanging out for a super hard Brexit and the parliament unlikely to permit a no-deal : would it not make sense to hit "start again " ?

Of course , even with proper preparation and planning and a clear statement of what Brexit would actually mean , this would still imply a further referendum. And of course this is anathema to the Brexiters with their cry of " we must respect the people's vote !" ; bit I'm increasingly sure they are pushing this line because they are well aware that they "stole" that vote and are most unlikely to win another now that more information is on the table...

Though if they really believe the people still want Brexit they should welcome a chance to nail the issue completely , no ?

I know Duty wont agree       But it makes sense to me.

Apologies for entering this argument from 12000 miles away .  Got plenty of political issues down here too ; but I'm not happy seeing the Old Country making a laughing stock of itself taking three years to do nothing but run around in circles...

The Leave side certainly didn't 'steal' the 2016 vote, whatever that means. The Leave side had to cope with most major political parties campaigning for Remain, the government agitating for a Remain vote, and with the Remain side spending £6 million pounds more on the campaign than the Leave side (this increases to £15 million if you include the government leaflet that advised people to vote Remain).

There's little evidence that a second vote would go differently. I mean, in recent years we've had:

2014 - UKIP win the European Elections/2015 - Tories win a majority whilst promising a referendum/2016 - 8% more people vote for the Leave option than the Remain choice in the biggest democratic exercise by turnout % for 24 years/2017 - 85% of votes went to parties that pledged to honour the referendum result/2019 - The Brexit Party win the European Elections (most probably!).

We can also see that the opinion polling has barely moved on the issue. The last YouGov poll I saw on the issue, sometime last year, was reading at the exact same levels as it was in June 2016. Having said that, Survation regularly poll on this topic, and they've shown a clear trend towards Leave over the past few months (55-45 in favour of Remain in January, now 51-49 in favour of Leave in May).

I'm against another vote (before we've implemented the first one) for two main reasons. Firstly, we shouldn't be the sort of country that sets a precedent for having a second vote on an issue, just because the political establishment didn't like the result of the first one. Secondly, Leave winning again in the event of a second vote wouldn't nail the issue. We'd still have some on the Remain side trying to undermine the result, just as they have been doing since 2016 (the way these nonsensical terms 'soft' or 'hard' Brexit have entered the lexicon is testament to that).

Duty281 wrote:The Leave side had to cope with most major political parties campaigning for Remain, the government agitating for a Remain vote...

That isn't something they had to cope with, it was something that helped them win. With the prevailing anti-establishment sentiment, my opinion is that if the major parties had been for Leave, Remain would have won.

No matter what it is or who commenced it - I'm against it!

Sorry , Duty : I didn't mean to imply any underhanded conduct on the part of the leave campaign . My use of "stolen" was more a poetic expression of (my own) belief that a lot of people voted leave with scant regard for the consequences and relatively little thought. ( I do not suggest this applies to all such voters by any means)
Of course I may be wrong. As might you... Never mind European elections etc : they are logically going to attract more interest from those with strong feelings and don't necessarily mirror the entire electorate's likely position at a stark choice between a no deal exit or retaining the status quo.

Anyway unless you believe in Unicorns it is difficult to see a Parliamentary resolution in our lifetimes

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Leave side had to cope with most major political parties campaigning for Remain, the government agitating for a Remain vote...

That isn't something they had to cope with, it was something that helped them win. With the prevailing anti-establishment sentiment, my opinion is that if the major parties had been for Leave, Remain would have won.

No matter what it is or who commenced it - I'm against it!

Interesting take. Would mean, if true, that Leave would be strong favourites to win another referendum, if held.

alfie wrote:Sorry , Duty : I didn't mean to imply any underhanded conduct on the part of the leave campaign . My use of "stolen" was more a poetic expression of (my own) belief that a lot of people voted leave with scant regard for the consequences and relatively little thought. ( I do not suggest this applies to all such voters by any means)
Of course I may be wrong. As might you... Never mind European elections etc : they are logically going to attract more interest from those with strong feelings and don't necessarily mirror the entire electorate's likely position at a stark choice between a no deal exit or retaining the status quo.

Anyway unless you believe in Unicorns it is difficult to see a Parliamentary resolution in our lifetimes

Okay.

I agree that, with such a poor withdrawal agreement negotiated, it's difficult to see a parliamentary resolution. And they haven't managed to agree on other options when Parliament debated them a few months back. That only leaves us with the default, no-deal exit on October 31st.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Leave side had to cope with most major political parties campaigning for Remain, the government agitating for a Remain vote...

That isn't something they had to cope with, it was something that helped them win. With the prevailing anti-establishment sentiment, my opinion is that if the major parties had been for Leave, Remain would have won.

No matter what it is or who commenced it - I'm against it!

Interesting take. Would mean, if true, that Leave would be strong favourites to win another referendum, if held.

Maybe.
If the options were -
1. Leave
2. Remain
3. All politicians can go **** themselves

I think we'd have a landslide!

A no deal Brexit though is more so much more than those drooling over it. Let us presume the UK leaves with No Deal in October. It will mean all ties cut with the EU but more importantly it means the definite return of a hard border going up between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which neither of those countries want to see and goes against the Good Friday Agreement and could lead to return to hostilities in Northern Ireland. There is no way around it either so Westminster what do you want? A No Deal Brexit and the real threat of a return to the bad old days of violence in Northern Ireland or a softer Brexit and some bruised Westminster egos.

CaledonianCraig wrote:A no deal Brexit though is more so much more than those drooling over it. Let us presume the UK leaves with No Deal in October. It will mean all ties cut with the EU but more importantly it means the definite return of a hard border going up between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which neither of those countries want to see and goes against the Good Friday Agreement and could lead to return to hostilities in Northern Ireland. There is no way around it either so Westminster what do you want? A No Deal Brexit and the real threat of a return to the bad old days of violence in Northern Ireland or a softer Brexit and some bruised Westminster egos.

No it doesn't. No one wants a hard border. Not the UK government. Not the Irish government. Not the EU Commission. So it's incredibly unlikely there is going to be one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/leave-without-deal-irish-border/

Nobody wants it but it is unavoidable with a No Deal. The EU holds true to having secured borders and no hard border between Ireland (in EU) and Northern Ireland (not in the EU) is not possible. Why do you think the only viable solution put forward by the EU to avoid a hard border was rejected by the UK. And even if there were a way of avoiding the hard border then it blows apart this Brexit dream of securing its borders as immigrants could then pile through at the Irish Border.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nobody wants it but it is unavoidable with a No Deal. The EU holds true to having secured borders and no hard border between Ireland (in EU) and Northern Ireland (not in the EU) is not possible. Why do you think the only viable solution put forward by the EU to avoid a hard border was rejected by the UK. And even if there were a way of avoiding the hard border then it blows apart this Brexit dream of securing its borders as immigrants could then pile through at the Irish Border.

None of these things that you have written is true in the slightest. WTO rules do not require either the UK or the EU or the Irish to establish a hard border, so it is not 'unavoidable'. And if no party wants a hard border - presently no one does - then it simply isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, the UK and Ireland already have different standards of immigration for certain non-EU countries, and we don't see 'immigrants piling through' as it is. Also, Ireland are not in Schengen.

Talks of marathon proportions have already only come to the one viable solution that horrified the DUP. Wherein the border remains as is but Northern Ireland remain tied in with EU to a degree. That has been rejected already. So like I say the EU holds dear having hard borders with countries outside the EU and that will soon be the case in Northern Ireland. I am certain that if the UK could have left the EU with a hard Brexit whilst maintaining the current border in Ireland they would have done. They haven't because they can't.

Duty281 wrote:
None of these things that you have written is true in the slightest. WTO rules do not require either the UK or the EU or the Irish to establish a hard border, so it is not 'unavoidable'. And if no party wants a hard border - presently no one does - then it simply isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, the UK and Ireland already have different standards of immigration for certain non-EU countries, and we don't see 'immigrants piling through' as it is. Also, Ireland are not in Schengen.

Unless a country with an agenda (America) or an axe to grind (Argentina) complain about Ireland getting preferential treatment then the WTO will enforce a hard border to ensure goods from Ireland undergo the same checks as other goods.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Talks of marathon proportions have already only come to the one viable solution that horrified the DUP. Wherein the border remains as is but Northern Ireland remain tied in with EU to a degree. That has been rejected already. So like I say the EU holds dear having hard borders with countries outside the EU and that will soon be the case in Northern Ireland. I am certain that if the UK could have left the EU with a hard Brexit whilst maintaining the current border in Ireland they would have done. They haven't because they can't.

You can keep reiterating that a no-deal exit without leaving a hard border is impossible, but this is not borne out by either facts or reality. It is mere speculation.

Well if you can present me with an instance where any member country in the EU has a soft border with a non-EU country with no form of deals with the EU then I am all ears.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well if you can present me with an instance where any member country in the EU has a soft border with a non-EU country with no form of deals with the EU then I am all ears.

This in itself isn't how it works, because even if there are no instances of the above happening, it would not preclude the nature of it being a possibility, from both a legal and technical point. We shouldn't be surprised that because of an unprecedented occurrence (a member state leaving the EU) that further unprecedented events happen.

As it is, I know not of any instances where this is the case, but I'm not au fait with all of the dozens of borders that exist between EU and non-EU countries.

Here's the independent, full fact website:

Claim - Leaving the EU means there would have to be border controls between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Conclusion - That’s a matter of speculation at the moment. Some sort of customs checks on goods crossing the border would be needed, but not necessarily passport checks or stopping everyone.

And that's perfectly correct. I think a hard border is unlikely, because it isn't required by law, and no party (as yet) supports such a measure. But it is profoundly incorrect to 100% rule that there definitely will be a hard border (or vice versa).

Independent, full opinion website you mean.

No, full-fact. I find it to be a very good, independent, transparent website.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-and-irish-border/
https://fullfact.org/about/

CaledonianCraig wrote:Independent, full opinion website you mean.

Not the hill to die on, Fullfact is as close to a fully independent, non-biased fact check we have these days.

Well I stand by my point. Brexiteers hoping for a Hard/No Deal Brexit with a soft border remaining in Ireland are living in cloud cuckoo land. The EU have already laid out where they stand on that front and have said there will be no change.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I stand by my point. Brexiteers hoping for a Hard/No Deal Brexit with a soft border remaining in Ireland are living in cloud cuckoo land. The EU have already laid out where they stand on that front and have said there will be no change.

Well that is your choice. As none of the UK/Ireland/EU want this hard border, I fail to see how one is suddenly going to be implemented, but there we are.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I stand by my point. Brexiteers hoping for a Hard/No Deal Brexit with a soft border remaining in Ireland are living in cloud cuckoo land. The EU have already laid out where they stand on that front and have said there will be no change.

Well that is your choice. As none of the UK/Ireland/EU want this hard border, I fail to see how one is suddenly going to be implemented, but there we are.

There has been tweaks to deals bartered between the EU and UK but one thing has remained constant - the border issue. Without a hard Brexit the very best the UK has been able to negotiate has been a deal with soft border but Northern Ireland tied into the EU. The DUP have flung that option out of the window. That option was there if a deal could be agreed and it wasn't. And now you are suggesting that the UK could throw a hissy fit and declare no deal, peeing off the EU yet keep a soft border? Pull the other one eh? Ireland won't be happy with a hard border but will realise its the price of staying in the EU and neither will Northern Ireland be happy with Westminster's incompetence in all of this.

The realistic options open to the UK are renegotiating a new deal with the EU involving staying in the Customs Union which would keep the soft border in place. Or not being able to agree a deal and leaving with No Deal in which case a hard border goes up. They can't have their cake and eat it or cherry pick with the EU.

Duty281 wrote:

Well that is your choice. As none of the UK/Ireland/EU want this hard border, I fail to see how one is suddenly going to be implemented, but there we are.

WTO spokeman speaking in Dublin last year.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

The Geneva organisation insisted that it would not impose checks along the Irish border.

“The WTO will not intervene unless one of its members brought a case,” said Mr Rockwell. “If they [the UK] do not apply any duties or customs procedures against other trading partners and they do not have a trade agreement, some people might not be happy about that and they can bring a dispute settlement case.”

CaledonianCraig wrote:And now you are suggesting that the UK could throw a hissy fit and declare no deal, peeing off the EU yet keep a soft border?.

Yes, absolutely. It's of mutual benefit to all parties.

Early indications for tonight's results are it's going very well for the Brexit Party in the north of England, and very well for the Lib Dems in London.

Tory sources, apparently, saying their party will only get 0-1 seats in the whole election. Surely a form of expectation management!

Results starting to come in. Lib Dems have beaten Labour to 2nd. Brexit Party look to have done quite a bit better than UKIP in 2014.

Both May and Corbyn lost decisively in their respective seats.

Brexit Party will probably end up with 29 seats, an improvement of 5 over UKIP in 2014. A comfortable lead. Good campaign. Straight bat. Easy win. Won 9 regions, I think.

LDs did very well and came second. They're clearly the premier 'Remain' force and had a fantastic result in London. Good campaign.

Labour's tediously negative campaign based on fear was rejected and they finished third. Another rubbish election night for Corbyn who, if he had any integrity, would surely resign and hand over leadership to a halfway competent campaigner and leader. Labour lost in Islington for goodness sake, as well as their worst performance in Wales and a hammering in Yorkshire and a collapse in Scotland.

But if there was one thing worse, it was that the Tories had an absolutely atrocious night, even by the standards of governing parties generally doing poor in these elections. Their non-campaign was rejected decisively. Only ended up with 3 MEPs. They must avoid a GE at all costs.

Greens have been solid, got fourth place. Nothing spectacular really. UKIP got the expected drubbing and there's nothing left for them as a party now, bar a handful of councillors. Change UK abysmal. Might get a seat in Scotland, I'm unsure though. Barely scraped past UKIP's popular vote. Overall turnout barely moved past what it was in 2014.

The SNP win every constituency on the mainland and increase their seat count. I would say a categorical two fingers up to Ruth the Mooth who was calling for people to vote against SNP to show they don't want another indyref.

People are going to spin these results to suit them, whether you argue that Brexit wins because the BP got the most seats, or Remain wins because they got the most votes. Either way it should be a wake up call to the Big 2.

Samo wrote:People are going to spin these results to suit them, whether you argue that Brexit wins because the BP got the most seats, or Remain wins because they got the most votes. Either way it should be a wake up call to the Big 2.

It is not just about these results for the SNP though. They have been strong in the last two or three opinion polls and won seats in two recent by-elections. And lest we forget people had to put up with Ruth using one lone bright election result claiming it to be a pointer to all things such as death of the SNP, end of indyref2 Hope's and even lately she says she hopes  to be the next first minister. Boy she must be smoking some grand waccybaccy.

Duty281 wrote:Righty'o, I think it's time to make one heap of all your winnings, and risk it on the 4/9 still available that the Brexit Party win the European Elections.

A profitable night then, even with the punt on a certain independent not coming to fruition. BP apparently the largest single party in the EU Parliament, not that that carries an awful lot of weight. They really should be winning the Peterborough by-election with both major parties in absolute disarray.

Samo wrote:People are going to spin these results to suit them, whether you argue that Brexit wins because the BP got the most seats, or Remain wins because they got the most votes. Either way it should be a wake up call to the Big 2.

I don't know what the exact figure is for percentage of electorate that actually turned out to vote but am I right in saying it was less than 50%?  

So my point would be that the people most likely to inhabit that stubborn group of non-voting voters, given it's a European Parliament election, are people who want Brexit.  Now there'll be other people of all persuasions in that non-voting group but logically speaking, those most likely to have stayed away in protest at the 'invasive' EU elections are those pro Brexit referendum voters.

So the Remainers should be careful of claiming victory in defeat by totting up 'votes', after all it's also logically true to say that not all those who voted for Conservatives, Labour or the Greens are Remainers.

Turnout was just under 37%, I think. Not sure how totting up votes gives you more for Remain, unless you (erroneously) count Labour as Remain.

BP + CON + UKIP = 44%. They all support some form of Brexit.
LD + GRN + PLAID + SNP + CHG = 40.4%. They all want a second referendum/reverse Brexit.

I'm not sure where you would place Labour as, in their European manifesto, they pledge to 'honour the result of the referendum' but, also, if they can't get an acceptable deal, they would be open to other options like a 'public vote' (though this comes behind a General Election in order of preference). Either way, I wouldn't feel confident in placing their vote in either of the above two camps.

Duty281 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Righty'o, I think it's time to make one heap of all your winnings, and risk it on the 4/9 still available that the Brexit Party win the European Elections.

A profitable night then, even with the punt on a certain independent not coming to fruition. BP apparently the largest single party in the EU Parliament, not that that carries an awful lot of weight. They really should be winning the Peterborough by-election with both major parties in absolute disarray.

The people are obviously not attracted to fence sitting, 'we're all things to all men' parties in these turbulent times.  Hell, even the declared 'Centrist'/middle ground/fence-sitting non-right-non-left party, the LibDems, wisely got off the fence and had the courage to take a side in the big Brexit fight.

People want clarity.  No fudge.  No 'compromise'.  For Leavers, to be told to compromise is really an assumed arrogant assertion by Remainers that "we're not going to give you what you voted for".  For Remainers... well, the word also states what it means and they in their heart of hearts want EU membership to continue on unbroken.  There IS no genuine middle ground.  There is no genuine way of saying you are a party that wants to serve and please both sides.  You can't.  And the philosophical middle ground fudge of Labour and Conservatives landed them in the swamp they find themselves in.  The Brexit voters didn't vote for the middle.  They voted OUT.  And both Conservatives and Labour are going to have to take a solid stand on one side or the other and risk the wrath of their traditional support base.  They've already lost enough clinging to this mythic nonsense called the middle.

I've seen figures overnight (well, for you) that suggest more individual votes for anti brexit than pro. That was without Lab/Cons. 

Not as cut and dry with either party, though we can guess one is majorly one way and the other is majorly the opposite. My folks, for example, are generally Conservative voters, but also voted remain and are more inclined to remain than even then.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I've seen figures overnight (well, for you) that suggest more individual votes for anti brexit than pro. That was without Lab/Cons. 

But again, who did the majority of non-voters 'vote' for?  In their minds, as it were.

There was footage on BBC this morning of a reporter at a car boot sale.  The lady questioned I think didn't vote at all.  She mumbled something about it just being for Europe (dismissive tone).  Then he asked her did she approve of the Brexit party's performance.  She said yes.

Now I can't imagine too many Remainers, who fear Leaving so much, being so lethargic about European Elections but muttering that they're happy enough that Lib Dems seem to have done well.  By definition, Pro EUers will feel more tuned up to vote in European Elections than careless Leavers who perhaps never voted in EU Elections anyway .... but who did vote in that historic Referendum.

SecretFly wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I've seen figures overnight (well, for you) that suggest more individual votes for anti brexit than pro. That was without Lab/Cons. 

But again, who did the majority of non-voters 'vote' for?  In their minds, as it were.

There was footage on BBC this morning of a reporter at a car boot sale.  The lady questioned I think didn't vote at all.  She mumbled something about it just being for Europe (dismissive tone).  Then he asked her did she approve of the Brexit party's performance.  She said yes.

Now I can't imagine too many Remainers, who fear Leaving so much, being so lethargic about European Elections but muttering that they're happy enough that Lib Dems seem to have done well.  By definition, Pro EUers will feel more tuned up to vote in European Elections than careless Leavers who perhaps never voted in EU Elections anyway .... but who did vote in that historic Referendum.

Yes, we must not forget to psychically determine the minds of every non-voter and take them into account as much as every voter.

Yeah...that's true.  Sorry to have to remind you of them when the Lib Dems seem to be the newest White Knight charging onto the battlefield for Remain.

..but tis true.  People who don't like the EU are more likely NOT to vote in EU Elections....but they will vote in Referendums..... as the blasted Brexit proves, innit?

It's true because SecretFly says FACT. That's good enough for me.

It's logic.  I got no copyright on logic.....

.... but with some dodgy accounting by my thrifty accountant, I do manage to get tax back on its usage....  

In general yes. But this election was more of a proxy ref2 for most than an EU election

GSC wrote:In general yes. But this election was more of a proxy ref2 for most than an EU election

Exactly. Most Remainers actually accept that we are leaving, but don't want a hard Brexit because we don't want lost jobs, falling living standards, the resultant rise in crime etc. As such this vote is neither here nor there and many won't bother to have voted. But Leavers are panicking that there will be no Brexit or a soft Brexit or another Referendum and see this vote as an important way to prevent that and so are more likely to vote.

I have as much evidence for this as SF has for his theory.

SecretFly wrote:Yeah...that's true.  Sorry to have to remind you of them when the Lib Dems seem to be the newest White Knight charging onto the battlefield for Remain.

..but tis true.  People who don't like the EU are more likely NOT to vote in EU Elections....but they will vote in Referendums..... as the blasted Brexit proves, innit?  

I don't agree with this at all. I would say the Brexit party gave it a pretty easy impetus for people to vote directly, a clearer message to follow. Many of the other parties were a mix and not direct, so didn't encourage people to vote. Further to that, people who don't like the EU are far more likely to vote in something that shoves the finger up to the EU than people who are either mildly concerned or battered down by it all.

SecretFly wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I've seen figures overnight (well, for you) that suggest more individual votes for anti brexit than pro. That was without Lab/Cons. 

But again, who did the majority of non-voters 'vote' for?  In their minds, as it were.

There was footage on BBC this morning of a reporter at a car boot sale.  The lady questioned I think didn't vote at all.  She mumbled something about it just being for Europe (dismissive tone).  Then he asked her did she approve of the Brexit party's performance.  She said yes.

Now I can't imagine too many Remainers, who fear Leaving so much, being so lethargic about European Elections but muttering that they're happy enough that Lib Dems seem to have done well.  By definition, Pro EUers will feel more tuned up to vote in European Elections than careless Leavers who perhaps never voted in EU Elections anyway .... but who did vote in that historic Referendum.

Turnout figures, early on, were showing that 'Remain areas' were generating higher turnouts than 'Leave areas'. I don't know if this pattern continued, but I do know turnout barely exceeded 2014. Looks like it did:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jnL1rfgfMgf_fpdzLCGQpnmKjV5n3GngVSXrGQqwD1E/edit#gid=0

I think it is correct to say, if you don't include the Con/Lab parties, that votes for 'Remain' parties were higher than 'Leave' ones...but as the Tories stood on a clear pro-Leave platform, I have no idea why you wouldn't include them in the Leave figures!

40.4% Anti-Brexit (LD, Greens, SNP, Change, Plaid)
34.9% Pro-Brexit (BP, UKIP)
9.1% Cons
14.1% Labour

That's what I've seen. What the underlying missing figures are, I don't know

Opinions don't need evidence thankfully.... so your theory is allowed in the realms of 606 political nonsensery, Julius

..so why was I asked to show my FACT card earlier?

Yet again one law for nice furry Remainers and another for slippery and scaly Leavers!
Back to me car boot sale for some comforting!

SecretFly wrote:Opinions don't need evidence thankfully.

Which covers pretty much every post you make

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:40.4% Anti-Brexit (LD, Greens, SNP, Change, Plaid)
34.9% Pro-Brexit (BP, UKIP)
9.1% Cons
14.1% Labour

That's what I've seen. What the underlying missing figures are, I don't know

You need to add the 9.1% for the Tories to the pro-Brexit tally, because the Tories stood on a pro-Leave platform.

Duty281 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I've seen figures overnight (well, for you) that suggest more individual votes for anti brexit than pro. That was without Lab/Cons. 

But again, who did the majority of non-voters 'vote' for?  In their minds, as it were.

There was footage on BBC this morning of a reporter at a car boot sale.  The lady questioned I think didn't vote at all.  She mumbled something about it just being for Europe (dismissive tone).  Then he asked her did she approve of the Brexit party's performance.  She said yes.

Now I can't imagine too many Remainers, who fear Leaving so much, being so lethargic about European Elections but muttering that they're happy enough that Lib Dems seem to have done well.  By definition, Pro EUers will feel more tuned up to vote in European Elections than careless Leavers who perhaps never voted in EU Elections anyway .... but who did vote in that historic Referendum.

Turnout figures, early on, were showing that 'Remain areas' were generating higher turnouts than 'Leave areas'. I don't know if this pattern continued, but I do know turnout barely exceeded 2014. Looks like it did:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jnL1rfgfMgf_fpdzLCGQpnmKjV5n3GngVSXrGQqwD1E/edit#gid=0

I think it is correct to say, if you don't include the Con/Lab parties, that votes for 'Remain' parties were higher than 'Leave' ones...but as the Tories stood on a clear pro-Leave platform, I have no idea why you wouldn't include them in the Leave figures!

But it is a Remain/Leave binary? Or is it Hard Brexit/Soft Brexit/No Brexit?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I've seen figures overnight (well, for you) that suggest more individual votes for anti brexit than pro. That was without Lab/Cons. 

But again, who did the majority of non-voters 'vote' for?  In their minds, as it were.

There was footage on BBC this morning of a reporter at a car boot sale.  The lady questioned I think didn't vote at all.  She mumbled something about it just being for Europe (dismissive tone).  Then he asked her did she approve of the Brexit party's performance.  She said yes.

Now I can't imagine too many Remainers, who fear Leaving so much, being so lethargic about European Elections but muttering that they're happy enough that Lib Dems seem to have done well.  By definition, Pro EUers will feel more tuned up to vote in European Elections than careless Leavers who perhaps never voted in EU Elections anyway .... but who did vote in that historic Referendum.

Turnout figures, early on, were showing that 'Remain areas' were generating higher turnouts than 'Leave areas'. I don't know if this pattern continued, but I do know turnout barely exceeded 2014. Looks like it did:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jnL1rfgfMgf_fpdzLCGQpnmKjV5n3GngVSXrGQqwD1E/edit#gid=0

I think it is correct to say, if you don't include the Con/Lab parties, that votes for 'Remain' parties were higher than 'Leave' ones...but as the Tories stood on a clear pro-Leave platform, I have no idea why you wouldn't include them in the Leave figures!

But it is a Remain/Leave binary?

Yes.