Lib Dem Leapfrog
Westminster Voting Intention
CON: 32% (=)
LDM: 23% (+4)
LAB: 21% (-2)
BXP: 14% (=)
GRN: 4% (-3)Via @YouGov.
Changes w/ 9-10 Sep.— Election Maps UK (@ElectionMapsUK) September 18, 2019
Caution Advised
This is just one poll.
It is in contrast to another recent poll.
I guess they didn’t care pic.twitter.com/ehd4eTwOwW
— Matt Singh (@MattSingh_) September 14, 2019
Clear Position
Caution aside, the poll result is not exactly surprising.
Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson promises a clear position: Overturn Article 50 and stay in the EU.
In contrast, Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn promises a referendum.
“I think the important thing is to put the offer before the people and they will make the choice.”
Jeremy Corbyn says that voters should decide in a referendum if the UK should remain in the EU or leave with a new deal. pic.twitter.com/mm3tXZHgq5
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) September 18, 2019
Corbyn proposes a referendum in which voters decide to remain or let him negotiate a customs union.
Calculated Moves
This all seems like political madness, but it is a calculated move by both Corbyn and Swinson.
- Swinson wants an election before there is a result. If she can achieve that, Labour will get crushed by its wishy washy policy. But if there is a result before the election the platform of Remain is totally useless.
- On the other hand, Corbyn wants a result, any result, before there is an election.
- The problem for both Corbyn and Swinson is they do not want an election to be to the advantage of Boris Johnson.
Bad Deal Increasingly Likely
Corbyn may very well support a deal, any deal, just to prevent an election blowout.
I suspect he would even opt for Theresa May’s inept deal, flat out as is.
Magic Increasingly Likely
A magic solution, despite all the protestations from the EU regarding the backstop seems increasingly likely.
It would solve a problem for Johnson (who by the way would be right about getting a deal), and it would give Labour a one-on-one go at Johnson.
Why?
Because any solution, no matter what, takes out both the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Flies in the Ointment
One problem with what I just proposed is the EU is increasingly belligerent. And it’s obvious to the UK.
Corbyn will of course grant a “free vote”. He can hardly be for a people’s choice and then not grant MPs the right to vote as they please. Labour might not go along.
Theresa May’s deal has been defeated three times already.
But if MPs are hell bent on stopping “No Deal” to the point of getting any deal, no matter bad, then a bad deal will be the result.
Synopsis
- Labour wants to sidetrack the Liberal Democrats and vice versa.
- Corbyn does not really want a referendum. He would get killed by one.
- Swinson’s claim that her number one priority is to stop No Deal is a lie. Her number one priority is to sink Labour.
- The cross section of the above points keeps no deal in play despite all sides claiming they want a deal.
Brexit Guaranteed
Brexit, by some definition, is pretty much guaranteed.
But as I have stated before, Remain is far better than a bad deal.
Later today, the UK supreme court will rule on prorogation. The resolution of the above points will have a far greater impact on a deal (or no deal) than the court decision.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Getting a deal doesn’t take out the Brexit Party for an election- if the deal is really Theresa’s deal, and the EU courts maintain primacy, then the whole farce rolls on.
Jeremy Corbyn says that voters should decide in a referendum if the UK should remain in the EU or leave with a new deal.
Voters already decided to leave. Corbyn is anti democracy.
Apparently in the English political system (which I don’t understand at all) certain politicians can keep on asking for referendums until they get the result they want.
Nigel Farage just wants to have a “grown up conversation”. Good luck, Nigel!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=127&v=gz8rrUpq2o8
“Jeremy Corbyn says that voters should decide in a referendum if the UK should remain in the EU or leave with a new deal.”
No Jeremy, the vote was to leave the EU. This new vote breaks your promise to respect the referendum result. A vote to leave with a Deal or a No Deal choice would have been fair enough, but too much time has now passed. We just have to leave.
Not really related to the topic at hand, but this is one reason why trying to negotiate trade deals with a 27 nation block isn’t a great idea.
Let me guess; it has to do with agriculture. Austria does not want that her family dairy farms, and her picturesque Alpine landscape, which form a interdependent system, be determined by the price of milk produced in the pampas. The EU bankers probably want unfettered access to the South American economy. If my assumption is right, I applaud the failure of this globalist deal.
Not much to argue with here Mish. There is one thing you omit however. The Tories are going hell for leather for no deal. The Libdems are going hell for leather for revoke. In the middle is an ” extremist”. At one fell swoop the extremist is no longer extreme. This will take some time to sink in but when it does well the skies the limit. There are a lot of people like me, who are really worried about the state of our country. The UK doesn’t like extremists, in fact it hates extremists. Corbyn has set himself up as the only adult in the room. Who’d a thought it?
Well here’s some happy news for you Avid
Liz Truss is a twat. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Why don’t they have a deal already in place? UK is not dealing with an EU country. I wouldn’t think there was anything stopping UK from having deals with non-EU countries.
Because the UK is still part of the EU at this time. The EU handles all foreign trade deals. At the current time the EU is trying to negotiate a deal with Australia but negotiations are likely to be drawn out for two reasons.
a) they want us to stop using geographic terms eg Parmesian cheese or Fetta. b) they want us to increase our fuel quality so they can sell cars with the latest euro engines here. Tied in with this is that they also want the removal of the luxury car tax.
While a) is probably easily achievable, point b) is not because it means driving up fuel prices across the board. Something that is not going to be well received by the aussie public.
Hi Quenda,
Thank you for the reply. What’s the difference in fuel? Are we talking gas or diesel (or both) ?? Curious about the differences in fuel. I knew that Europe had developed engines to run on mandated low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Quick disclaimer: not a car person and I know nothing about fuels. However …
From the websites I’ve looked the issue seems to be sulphur. In 91 rated octane petrol the permissible maximum is 150 ppm sulphur. In premium fuels (95/98 octane rating) its 50 ppm. Apparently the EU maximum is 10 ppm.
Diesel seems to conform to EU standards.
Don’t quite understand. Australia doesn’t produce cars, EU does. What’s it to EU how much sulphur is in the fuel, other than wanting to shut themselves out of Australian market?
The EU is going to kill her car industry by imposing impossible fuel economy anyways, in the name of global virtue signalling. It forces car manufacturers to go electric when the battery technology is owned by Japan/China. The UK better leave that lunatic asylum.
Disclaimer: still not a car person
From a bit of googling it seems that the higher sulphur petrols can corrode the O2 sensors in the exhaust and possibly the catalytic converter system. So I suppose losing the O2 sensor stuffs up the cars computer when determining the optimal air-fuel mix.
From what I can see despite a few holdouts like Australia, Mexico etc the world is migrating towards the EU mandated sulphur limits and it will eventually become the standard officially or otherwise.
However it doesn’t help the EU getting a trade deal done fast, particularly in light of the Saudi attack when petroleum prices are already on the increase. Also like others have said here I can’t see the world jumping across to EV’s any time soon. Mind you if it does happen the EU manufacturers are way behind the curve.
The EU is a bloc and no member is allowed to negotiate and trade deals themselves- only through the EU.
Trump is also promising a trade deal that the US house democrats are promising to sink if Brexit becomes reality. They claim they will sink it if “the Good Friday Agreement comes under threat,” but what they really mean is basically any Brexit. As a former democrat (changed my lifetime party line affiliation at the end of July) I say to house democrats to keep their big fat noses out of this, it is internal politics to the UE and UK. They have no business messing with it.
Treaties have to be ratified by the senate, but trade deals need ratification from both houses, still, the house has had no impact on the trade war with China and other nations, so I maintain hope that when Brexit does happen we get a great big free trade deal with what remains of the UK, and I say that because the SNP is promising to leave the UK if Brexit happens. It might be under the radar for the time being, but there is no part of the EU that wants it’s welfare more than Scotland and the RoI. Ironic too since Ireland had to be forced into the union.
Most of the House democrats are infected with severe TDS and will not go along with anything Trumpian. They do not care if it is good for the country or not.
Thats ok. We would welcome a trade deal with the UK. The faster we can get our foot through the door the better it is for us.