In previously hard-line pro Leave areas like the West Midlands, the reversal is even more pronounced. A majority would now vote to remain in the European Union, more than reversing the way the region voted in the referendum, according to an Express & Star survey of 10,000 respondents. 62% would now vote to 'remain' in the EU, a seismic shift from the 80% who supported vote to leave in the 2016 poll.
Remain. 10,000 respondents make the Express & Star the UKs biggest post Referrendum poll
The change to supporting a decision to remain equates to a shift of 21 percentage points based on the actual referendum vote. In the survey 86 per cent said they were 'not satisfied' with how the process was being handled. 73 per cent said they did not think Britain would have left the European Union by April 2019, the two year deadline after Article 50 was invoked. The survey also found that 52 per cent of people think MPs should vote the same way as their constituents now feel if there was a Commons vote, and 54 per cent of people did not believe rebel Conservative MPs should resign the party whip if they failed to back Theresa May or her chaotic hard Brexit stance.
Survation found over half of third poll wanted a cross-party coalition of parties to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU. Less than a quarter support the Government's current strategy of leaving the customs union in order to strike free trade deals with other countries.
“A second Brexit referendum looking ever more likely,” according to Professor Vernon Bogdanor, David Cameron's former politics tutor, who sees a second referendum as a 'life raft' for the Tory minority in a hung parliament;“James Callaghan presciently declared that for a divided party, the referendum might well prove a “rubber life raft into which the whole party may one day have to climb”..." a referendum on Europe appeared even more unlikely when, in 1971, Tony Benn proposed it to Labour’s national executive."
The original 2016 EU referrendum results were 51.9% to 48.1% in favour of Leave, a result completely overhauled in the opposite direction (remain) by more recent 2016 and 2017 polls. European Union Referendum Bill 2015 and subsequent Act neither had a requirement for the UK government 'implement' the poll results, nor did the statute set any time limit for implementing a vote to leave the EU. The poll was set up only to be a pre-legislative, or a consultative, referendum in legal terms, enabling the electorate to voice an opinion, to inform legislators before any changes could be introduced through Parliament. Briefing paper 07212 sent to MPs on 3 June 2015 before the debate in the House on the 2015 Referen dum Bill made it perfectly clear that the referendum was “advisory” and “consultative” only and that neither the government nor parliament was bound by it (section 5) (Hansard, June 16 2015). It appears all of the MPs who are now going along with this hijacking of democracy have selective memory of this fact. David Cameron (C3PO made of ham) transcended his PM authority with the homespun pretext that the referendum was binding, and deliberately concealed the advisory status in all public information. MPs were instructed to be complicit in this concealment.
The differences between Elections and Referenda were not understood, and nor were the consequences of a Leave vote, due to inaccuracies of the claims made by it’s supporters
A referendum is not an election. Voters can periodically change their minds about the outcome of a previous vote through elections as those elected can be held to account for failure to deliver manifesto promises. Nigel Farage wanted a second referendum as he said on April 23rd 2016. As Lord Heseltine said, "It took Nicola Sturgeon a matter of months to be back on the trail of a second referendum and Nigel Farage would have been doing exactly the same if he had lost. So what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." There is a diverse but constant demand for a final exit referendum based on actual facts of any proposed Brexit costs and deals, rather than wildly inaccurate press claims and external interferences of 2016. Otherwise we allow a free pass for UKKKIP and far right Tories with a new constitutional principle under which popular sovereignty expressed in a referendum trumps parliamentary sovereignty, in a form of democracy never envisaged or approved by either House and not debated in the country at large. That would be the hijacking of democracy by the Cameron-May double act. As Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College London, said "Brexit after all raises fundamental, indeed existential, issues for the future of the country. That is why the final deal needs the consent not only of parliament, but of a sovereign people." Richard Branson concurred, “When all the facts are known and are on the table, I would hope that a second referendum can take place based on real facts and not on the facts that people were given."
There has never been a constitutional decision by Parliament stating that the UK shall leave the EU and so the Article 50 Notification served on 29 March cannot be considered valid. Democracy in the UK is based on the founding principle that the elected Members of Parliament (MPs) make the law. MPs passed the 2015 EU Referendum Act with the stated intent only that it should be advisory, with its results to be considered, scrutinised and decided on by Parliament. Whatever appeared in the Conservative manifesto of 2015 has no bearing on the legal status of the 2015 Act. The referendum result itself cannot be the “decision” as (a) the Act was without question not set up to be binding, (b) had no defined thresholds set at outset because it was not binding and (c) as the Supreme Court has confirmed what we already knew about the 'mother of all parliaments;' only Parliament can make such a decision, and ONLY by means of an Act of Parliament. The necessary governance and scrutiny has not been provided; democracy could only have been served had Parliament been allowed to freely debate, consider and vote upon what action should be taken in the national interest as a result of the advisory referendum of 23 June 2016. That has not happened. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else has the right to pervert democracy by failing to allow MPs to do the job required of them, i.e. act diligently, scrutinising the facts and all information, including new information, necessary to accept the referendum results or demand further evidence or review. The country is not run, and we cannot let it be run, to an agenda and timescale set by the Daily Mail, Daily Express or Sun, set by their foreign or offshore far-right owners, their hate-filled headlines and their lackey editors, propped by a cabal, led by 5 far-right transglobal billionaires.
Bruce Ackerman, writing in 2011, warned of the dangers of referenda systems: "a poorly designed system could serve as a platform for pandering to the worst instincts of the public, as countless demagogues have shown since Napoleon first demonstrated the abusive potential of referendums in the aftermath of the French Revolution."
More people didn’t vote than voted to leave in the 2016 EU Referendum
Only 37% of the electorate ever supported Brexit, even at the height of the campaign. There are more people not on the electoral register than voted for either campaign. It was Nigel Farage who said of the European Union Referendum 23 June 2016 that a further referendum WOULD be needed. The leader of UKIP even conceded defeat on the night of the vote, so certain that Remain would win. In 2011 Ministers had agreed, six years prior, that referenda “cannot be legally binding." A petition signed by over 4 million demanded in fact that in order to be decisive the vote should require at least a 60% threshold. Farage said, "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the"..."campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."As Professor A C Grayling wrote to MPs, "51.9% Leave vote is 51.9% of the 72% of the people who voted, thus representing 37% of the electorate. This is somewhat less than a third of the British people as a whole, taking into account under-18s. So this is not ‘the will of the British people,’ a stirring phrase but a very inaccurate one."
Even the Telegraph described the Referrendum campaign as “mired by scaremongering and the misuse of statistics.” .
He said to Theresa May 12 months ago, "Such a margin would not permit a Trades Union strike, it is far below the threshold for a Parliamentary decision in favour of a dissolution, and no other question of major constitutional import can possibly be justified by such a narrow margin of actual votes cast. "He had previously written to all MPs to record, " If the 2015 Bill had been expressly offered as binding Parliament and Government to the referendum outcome, there would have been discussion of the need for a minimum threshold vote" [e.g. a 2/3,supermajority] " Briefing Paper 07212 expressly alerts MPs and members of the House of Lords to that fact that ‘major constitutional change is something more important than the result of ordinary elections, and therefore should be the outcome of something more than a simple plurality of the votes."
Cameron added further unconstitutional spin when he mooted at he start of 2016 the vote would turn decisively on a 50% threshold. Parliament never agreed or set that threshold. No other democracy in the developed world has ever sanctioned a referendum for an irrevocable decision of such magnitude where a nation's future action could hinge on just one vote, with no additional safeguards against gerrymandering or interference in the absence of a supermajority threshold (say, 66% and a 75% turnout) Professor A C Grayling, Master New College of the Humanities, noted "If there was any risk of it being misunderstood that it was advisory only, a supermajority should have been stipulated." That’s why Nigel Fag-rage conceded that the referendum result was technically advisory only, but says only with the benefit of hindsight on the Andrew Marr Show on 6th November 2016: “I take the advisory point, and I would now wish to see constitutional change to make referendums binding"
Now it is very clear what the extent of misinformation provided in the Leave case is. Even the Telegraph described the Referrendum campaign as “mired by scaremongering and the misuse of statistics.” Amongst the lies was the sacremongering that Turkey will join Europe in 2020, we always get outvoted in Brussels, the EU needs us more than we need it, we send £350m a week to Brussels, and leaving EU would save the NHS. No mention that EU migrants support the NHS., paying more in taxes than they use in public services partly they are younger on average; one in 10 doctors is an EU migrant.
Other issues were referred to the acronym Prosecution Services because if alleged ‘fraudulent devices’ include misrepresentation of businesses and individuals as having supported Leave when they did not, as well as leaflets and websites were allegedly intentionally designed to trick voters. Of course the voter manipulation is claimed to run far beyond that.
Opinion: Ignoring All The Evidence; Full Steam Ahead On Undemocratic Brexit & Trade Deals For The Hard Right
Meanwhile, so very evidently against the 'will of the people' as well as all known paradigms of how our Parliament, law-making and constitution works, the Tory-only far-right hard Brexit team press ahead unilaterally with no Parliamentary agreement, despite the indisputable and increasing mountain of evidence that Brexit is damaging Britain and will do so more in future. Enter again stage far-right the anything but soothingly familiar alt-right frenzied headline Incitement of the Daily Distress, Daily Nail and Stun. Any edition is like being sectioned for a week in the secure ward of a lunatic asylum.
Why, you may ask. Right-wing media oligarchs are engaged in activities to avoid paying tax in the UK. In January 2019 - unsurprisingly, months before May’s planned ‘hard’ / crash Brexit - the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will come into effect. The EU measures which have so irritated the media oligarchs, set out a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures, with five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all member states will have to apply against common forms of aggressive ‘tax planning’. This includes measures to deter profit shifting to a low / no tax countries; to prevent double non-taxation of certain income; to prevent companies from avoiding tax when re-locating assets; to discourage artificial debt arrangements designed to minimise taxes, and the additional safeguard of the anti-abuse rules designed to counteract aggressive tax planning. Perhaps now we can see why Viscount Rothmere, Desmond, the Barclay brothers and Murdoch family are so desperate to crash out of the EU as soon as possible.
Sky New’s position is unsurprising. The bigger question is why the BBC, ITN News (and to a lesser extent Channel 4 News) are willing to follow the far-right pro Brexit narrative.
Then there is the question of the Conservatives resurrecting the failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) bi-lateral trade agreement, which was under discussion behind closed doors between the US and EU, under which the US led global elite set about reducing regulatory bthe right-wing media element is engaged in activities to avoid paying tax in the UK. In January 2019 - unsurprisingly, months before May’s planned ‘hard’ / crash Brexit - the EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will come into effect. The EU measures which have so irritated the media oligarchs, set out a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures, with five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all member states will have to apply against common forms of aggressive ‘tax planning’. This includes measures to deter profit shifting to a low / no tax countries; to prevent double non-taxation of certain income; to prevent companies from avoiding tax when re-locating assets; to discourage artificial debt arrangements designed to minimise taxes, and the additional safeguard of the anti-abuse rules designed to counteract aggressive tax planning. Perhaps now we can see why Viscount Rothmere, Desmond, the Barclay brothers and Murdoch family are so desperate to crash out of the EU as soon as possible.
Sky New’s position is unsurprising. The bigger question is why the BBC, ITN News (and to a lesser extent Channel 4 News) are willing to follow the far-right pro Brexit narrative.arriers to trade for big business; things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It was blocked as undemocratic by consumer pressure at the last minute by Germany, France and partly due to an insurmountable technical issue around consent. It was described at the time "assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”
This disturbing aspects of the undemocratic agreement previously proposed by the US now sought by Liam Fox is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected global corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments. These secret so-called investor courts are feature of modern trade deals, such as TTIP or the Canadian CETA where global investor can sue national regulators to receive arbitration from panels of commercial lawyers out of sight and hearing rather than through the legitimacy of public courts. A UK government seeking, for example, to address financial stability in future may find it needs to check with Washington first rather than Brussels.
Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP was to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This would guarantee the privatisation of the NHS on unfavourable terms, and with no legal right to re-nationalise failed public services in private hands without 'compensating' those responsible for the failure.
The USA has world's most expensive health care system, the US is the only nation without universal health care. America spends more per capita expenditure on health (USD PPP), has higher healthcare costs as a percent of GDP and spends a greater % of government revenue on health. Only (naturally) the % of health costs paid by government is less. 43 percent of low-income US families went without medical care because of costs. In the other countries, these rates ranged from 8 percent in Britain to 31 percent in Switzerland. “In comparison to adults in the other 10 countries, adults in the United States are sicker and more economically disadvantaged,” the World Health. Organisation reports stated.
Of course part of the techniques for controlling those on the race to the bottom of the jobs market, growth and consumer protection (and the ever increasing concern traction of power and wealth to an ever smaller super rich cabal) is the crushing of democratic informed choice. This is why Temp Theresa is so desperate to crash out. The far right of the Tory party supporting neoliberalism are in charge of Brexit and can afford no compromise on driving over the cliff edge.
As for Liam Fox's likelihood of delivering TTIP II with no accountability no discussion and no governance? Fox's Register of Interests for May 2017 include donations from Alexander Temerko, (a prominent Ukrainian-born British businessman in the energy sector, currently a director and Deputy Chairman of the UK-based company OGN Group). Liam Fox received £5,000 from investment company IPGL Ltd, who purchased healthcare pharma company Cyprotex. Liam Fox previously resigned when it emerged he asked a City financier to bankroll his unofficial adviser. Liam Fox wrote a book, which sold in tiny numbers. Only Azerbaijan wanted to give Fox money and buy the rights to his book which sold only in very small numbers globally. Buying books and papers is an old Soviet method of giving support to sympathisers abroad. It's therefore ironic that he should recycle the tired aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" (quoted AT him by the Daily Telegraph in 2012) to plug the idea that improvements in the general economy post Brexit will benefit all participants, whereas in fact the neoliberal stance is that only an ever-dwindling number of ever more ostentatious super yachts get lifted.
Fox has allegiances to Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, a neoliberal policy group. Given the UKs desperation for ANY trade deal and Trumps determination to show tough at home, count on the outcome being worse for middle incomes, for trade parity, for human rights, the rights of the individual over those of investors or big business and super rich elite, worse for the the poor, disabled, the NHS, agriculture, water and food supply, national security standards, defence, banking standards, consumer protection and health and safety. A neoliberal alt-right wet dream. Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating “investor-state dispute settlement”: offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.