Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[mongrel]

Car production routinely has measures to deal with delays in parts distribution,

Complacent. In Ted Heath's day the coping mechanism was laying people off without pay. Do we really want to go back to those Dark Ages?

whilst supermarkets will be forced to consider closer alternatives if supplies cannot be guaranteed, which is good for UK business.

And bad for us consumers/workers.

Russia dealt with sanctions by the EU on its goods and this has actually benefited Russian producers, why should the UK be a different..

I am nether Jew nor Muslim. where the hell will we get our bacon from?

Cross border policing, phooey. Stolen goods are freely passing through borders with criminals having networks from one end of Europe to another. Farm machinery is now almost stolen to order and transported across the Channel, without fear of border checks, its what is feeding the rural crime wave. The same goes for stolen cars. After decades of increasing levels of car crime the rate in the UK dropped substantuailly thanks to a crackdown on avenues of resale. Now car thefts, especially of expensive 4x4 cars have increased again, because they are stolen, dismantled and the parts shipped into Europe.

As for Farmer Giles, he won't find himself out of pocket after Brexit. Its just he will be getting his subsidies directly from the UK government instead of the EU. Perhaps then we can ensure that the food he is paid to produce will be consumed by the taxpayer, rather than wagon loads of such things as British lamb for consumption in the Middle East, which is curretly the the case in the crazy system of EU subsidiies.

No.The government has no plans to continue subsidies after the 2022 election.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...-after-brexit/

[caratacus]

I am nether Jew nor Muslim. where the hell will we get our bacon from?

Firstly don't eat bacon, its bad for your health, seriously!
But second, Britain produced a large share of its pig meat products until the O's. We were known for its superior quality. However, the industry was damaged by the government insisting on introducing strict new welfare standards in 1999 - when they were not due to be law in the European Union until 2013. The result was a swath of pig farmers going out of business. If we leave the EU it may give the imputus to UK production again, although hopefully not at the expense of animal welfare.

Two thirds of sausages and bacon imported into UK from pigs reared in cruel conditions
Two thirds of the sausages and bacon imported into the UK could come from pigs reared in cruel conditions, MPs say.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...onditions.html

An MPs’ report blamed a Government decision to force through higher welfare standards 14 years before the rest of Europe for helping to force pig farmers out of business.
More than half of the 800,000 tonnes of bacon and pork consumed every year is imported. But the report found “two thirds of imported pig meat might have been reared in conditions banned in this country.” The report from MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee blamed the Government for bringing in strict new welfare standards in 1999 - when they are not due to be law in the European Union until 2013.
The result was a collapse in the British pig herd, with numbers of pigs down by 40 per cent since 1999. Exporters from European countries like Denmark and Holland, where welfare standards are not as high, filled the gap by exporting tens of thousands of extra tonnes of pork to Britain

No.The government has no plans to continue subsidies after the 2022 election.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...-after-brexit/

As far as I am aware the Government don't have any detailed strategy for what happens to agricultural subsidies after Brexit. Is that any surprise though!

[mongrel]

As far as I am aware the Government don't have any detailed strategy for what happens to agricultural subsidies after Brexit. Is that any surprise though!

I have just stated the obvious haven't I, LOL!

Talking about woeful preparation, I recall the words off Liam Fox back around this time last year saying that a post-Brexit free trade deal with the EU would be the “easiest in human history". Now he is saying that the chances of no-deal are 60%.

[NorseThing]

How is being laid off as car production and retail distribution slows to accomodate the end of just in time warehousing a positive? Portugal has managed its drug issues without wrecking its economy.

I snipped your post to this single point. Brexit with either a hard or soft Brexit should not affect just in time international trade in parts, supplies, and materials. The rest of the world also operates manufacturing, fresh food deliveries, etc. on a just in time basis. Please do not blame such disruptions on Brexit. If such disruptions occur, it is due to the disruptive bureaucrats within the UK or more probably within the EU bureaucracy

[mongrel]

I snipped your post to this single point. Brexit with either a hard or soft Brexit should not affect just in time international trade in parts, supplies, and materials. The rest of the world also operates manufacturing, fresh food deliveries, etc. on a just in time basis. Please do not blame such disruptions on Brexit. If such disruptions occur, it is due to the disruptive bureaucrats within the UK or more probably within the EU bureaucracy

What is likely to happen due to incompetent handling is that overnight all our treaty arrangements will be void. That is entirely down to May implementing Article 50 far too early and no-one else. The resource required to handle the this, particularly at the ports just isn't there, because , as Mr Fox said, a post-Brexit free trade deal with the EU was supposed to be the “easiest in human history". One other country in the world trades solely on WTO rules-Mauritius, not exactly an economic powerhouse. What should have happened was the government testing the possible impacts and scenarios before even attempting a referendum let alone triggering Article 50.

[NorseThing]

Much of what you say is true, but also it is 'water over the dam' so to speak. We have a vote. It was a narrow decision, but it was a decision. We (actually those in the UK since I am from the USA) need to move on from the point we are at which is the trigger time left on Article 50. My hope would be that the government is doing more behind the scenes that we are seeing. In any case the time is ticking. The exit will happen. Politicians have a habit of sticking to losing positions until at the brink. It is time for the politicians to realize the invocation of article 50 was the brink. The brink is not when time runs out on the exit negotiations. I am hopeful that the lack of bilateral agreements is not due to the lack of progress on those negotiations unless it is from the separate EU countries not wanting to cooperate. But there are still the trade agreements with the Commonwealth, the USA, the rest of the Americas, of course the rest of the world that should be fixed and up to a post Brexit position now and not later after the EU has made accommodations. May is mistaken if she believes her version of a soft Brexit must happen before plans are completed for a potential hard break off from the EU. You undoubtedly know more about this and about where May sits as well as what her cabinet is actually doing.

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news...t-risk/435063/

Dive Insight:When the U.K. voted to leave to the European Union (EU) last year, global supply chain risk soared as companies with operations in the country were forced to consider the impact and shape of new terms of trade with the EU.
While some have begun to consider supply chain shifts, uncertainty has tempered in the months since the vote, and the most recent news seeks to further reassure businesses that a non-EU U.K. will not necessarily lead to higher operational costs. A new, bilateral trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K. will purportedly seek to reinstate the most important trade conditions from the previous deal with the EU, effective as soon as the Brexit takes place.
For that same reason, Trump and May had to pledge to begin talks immediately: free trade deals often take years to complete, and the U.K.'s reported timeline is 2019 — although much can still change. Neither Trump nor May are soft on trade, however, so negotiations could delay further.

The above article is from early last year. It is probably a good summation of all you were stating. I am just wondering what the delay is for completing the agreement with the USA. It should not be a difficult deal for either the Trump Administration or the May administration to complete. Both parties would gain a bit politically by completing the bilateral deal. This is not really the same as starting from scratch with a new trade deal. Two years should be enough! Let's hope that one small step for the UK can be made here.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I am just wondering what the delay is for completing the agreement with the USA. It should not be a difficult deal for either the Trump Administration or the May administration to complete. Both parties would gain a bit politically by completing the bilateral deal. This is not really the same as starting from scratch with a new trade deal. Two years should be enough! Let's hope that one small step for the UK can be made here.

Just to hone in on this. A US Trade deal is actually quite fraught politically for May, not merely because 'Trump' and his back and forth rhetoric on the issue, but you have British business and organizations like the CBI who are briefing against us seeking a comprehensive one, from a position of weakness (that would be us after brexit due to the lack of preperation) as their on record as saying we would be unable to compete in a free market against their US counterparts, who could outproduce and outprice them easily. This at a time when the privatization and outsourcing of economic sectors has become unpopular among the majority of the general public (for various reasons)- its not a good electoral pitch by the Tories. There are also a lot of environmental and food standard quality concerns, not to mention too the distrust that the the health sector would remain 'off the table'. So i won't say that May won't try and strike one with the US, and indeed she may have to, but it isn't going to be popular, particularly as any such trade deal will get an unusual level of scrutiny given that the first batch of trade deals and their consequences for the British public will be seen as the 'test' for the newly brexited 'Global Britain'- and thus they need to be able to at least be spinnable as 'good for the UK' and as meeting these electoral and British business concerns.

[NorseThing]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-pr...100922623.html

The EU has called on companies to increase their trade with Iran in defiance of Donald Trump’s sanction on the country.
The European commission today put in place never-before-used legislation to protects the continent’s firms from US sanctions which not only target Tehran but their trading partners.
And EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini has gone further by urging European businesses to do their bit to save the Iran nuclear deal by boosting trade with the country.
“We are encouraging small and medium enterprises in particularly to increase business with and in Iran as part of something that is for us a security priority,” Mogherini told journalists during a visit to New Zealand.
“I want to make this very clear because we’re talking about trade and economic relations with Iran because – this is an integral part of the nuclear deal.”
The Italian politician added that preserving trade with Iran in spite of Trump’s tactics were a matter of sovereignty.

This could be a bit of a misplaced fly in the ointment. The Italian politican is right though not in what he meant by what he stated. This is about sovereignty. It should not be a joint EU decision. That is not what sovereignty is. If Federica Mogherini was speaking as an Italian minister, his comments were be correct. As speaking as an EU minister, his comments miss the mark. This is why all countries should participate in bilateral trade agreements as well as the WTO (which allows such bilateral agreements).

[Dante Von Hespburg]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-pr...100922623.html


This could be a bit of a misplaced fly in the ointment. The Italian politican is right though not in what he meant by what he stated. This is about sovereignty. It should not be a joint EU decision. That is not what sovereignty is. If Federica Mogherini was speaking as an Italian minister, his comments were be correct. As speaking as an EU minister, his comments miss the mark. This is why all countries should participate in bilateral trade agreements as well as the WTO (which allows such bilateral agreements).

Its interesting as i think it depends, firstly on if the EU is percieved as a long-term federal project (with two-tiers of membership) or not, and secondly Bi-lateral arrangements are great, but they can also in their own way be a hammer-blow to sovereignty, particularly if between two unequal partners (Like the US and UK). For instance in nearly all of its trade deals (actually iirc in all) the US has always managed to impose its own regulatory standards upon the other- that's a loss of sovereignty there for the US's counterpart as they are forced by an external power to change their domestic policy, and lets not even get started on the legal fallbacks . Essentially bi-lateral arrangements can be good, but usually they are 'very good' for the larger body and very bad for the smaller recipient. Hence why rightfully their are fears in the UK in regards to agreements with China and the US. I mean if we want an even more extreme example, i'll try and see if i can dig up again the details to the China-Canada trade agreement which allowed Chinese businesses in Canada to use Chinese law and legal courts for issues and to ignore certain regulations iirc, meanwhile Canadian businesses in China had no such recipricol arrangement. Meanwhile smaller like-minded states pooling their trade together, particularly in an multi-polar world makes perfect sense as a safeguard to their domestic sovereignty. So its i would say far more complex than bi-lateral arrangements protect sovereignty whereas multilateral trade bodies and deals damages it- in many cases they actually damage it far worse than being part if a larger body in terms of pervasive influence over the domestic sphere by an 'unequal' power.

Of course we could always argue 'you don't have to sign anything'- but as we saw recently with the US and their bottled milk industry and the threats made around this to countries who wanted to shift towards promoting 'natural milk' (and if i remember supporting a UN or some such bill to that regard), there are consequences in international politics for not doing certain things when told by larger partners. Bi-lateral arrangements make this leverage far worse. As trade deals are always far more than just for business needs alas.

[mongrel]

Much of what you say is true, but also it is 'water over the dam' so to speak. We have a vote. It was a narrow decision, but it was a decision.

The decision isn't binding, Parliament is sovereign, ironically I thought that was the point of the vote. Nor did the vote prevent the Government from approaching the result in a competent manner. What progress that is being made is largely hampered by the fragile state of the Government and he PM's tendency to kick difficult issues into the long grass. This tactic has preserved her job, for now, but the legislative programme is now so congested May is quickly running
out of road. All we have to show for 2 years work is a very high-level White Paper which is little more than a 100 page long wish list. Not surpisingly neither the EU nor her own colleagues accept this document.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725288/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf

I think it is time we accept that the Government cannot deliver Brexit without harming the national interest,if they carry on like this, and that any action taken from this point on should fully consider the consequences to the nation.

[caratacus]

Much of what you say is true, but also it is 'water over the dam' so to speak. We have a vote. It was a narrow decision, but it was a decision. We (actually those in the UK since I am from the USA) need to move on from the point we are at which is the trigger time left on Article 50. My hope would be that the government is doing more behind the scenes that we are seeing. In any case the time is ticking. The exit will happen. Politicians have a habit of sticking to losing positions until at the brink. It is time for the politicians to realize the invocation of article 50 was the brink. The brink is not when time runs out on the exit negotiations. I am hopeful that the lack of bilateral agreements is not due to the lack of progress on those negotiations unless it is from the separate EU countries not wanting to cooperate. But there are still the trade agreements with the Commonwealth, the USA, the rest of the Americas, of course the rest of the world that should be fixed and up to a post Brexit position now and not later after the EU has made accommodations. May is mistaken if she believes her version of a soft Brexit must happen before plans are completed for a potential hard break off from the EU. You undoubtedly know more about this and about where May sits as well as what her cabinet is actually doing.

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news...t-risk/435063/

You are right a vote was taken, and since then the political establishment are working hard to undermine it as much as possible. The Government under Thereasa May has not only done very little to move a ahead and prepare for leaving the EU, she has actually undermined her own Brexit Minister in his negotiations with Brussels. On every issue she has capitulated to the extent that the document that has emerged from which was kept secret to supposedly prevent a n undermining of our position, is little more than a Brexit in name only. Theresa May was purposefully kept in office to absorb the flack when the ugly truth emerges, it is not my belief she doesn’t really want to remain in No10 by choice. How could she, given the huge upsetment by party members at the direction that Brexit is taking! Another election is something the Conservative party fears and will prevent as far as possible and the reason you have so much controversy being stirred up now with Jeremy Corbyn amongst the opposition benches, because he would be the one who benefits.

We now have those who wanted us to Remain within the EU, example of which are on these boards, arguing that there isn’t enough time to prepare for a no deal Brexit, and we had better just scrap the whole thing and start again with another referendum, or extend article 50 to an indefinite period. An opinion widely supported amongst Blairites who form the majority of the parliamentary Labour party, and who would benefit if Conservative voters stayed at home in an election. I see only concealment, obfuscation and gerrymandering which have no place in the democratic system, and until practices like this caused by outside influences, are rectified, then Brexit or any other policy that challenges the status quo, isn’t going anywhere.

[Iskar]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-pr...100922623.html


This could be a bit of a misplaced fly in the ointment. The Italian politican is right though not in what he meant by what he stated. This is about sovereignty. It should not be a joint EU decision. That is not what sovereignty is. If Federica Mogherini was speaking as an Italian minister, his comments were be correct. As speaking as an EU minister, his comments miss the mark. This is why all countries should participate in bilateral trade agreements as well as the WTO (which allows such bilateral agreements).

I think you're drawing on a somewhat too narrow notion of sovereignty here. If sovereign peoples (by actions of their democratically elected parliaments and governments) choose to throw in their lot together for whatever purpose, then the joint actions taken by their thus formed group are just as legitimate an expression of their sovereignty as if they had chosen to remain solitary in that matter. There is no loss of sovereignty where democratically elected representatives sign treaties to form supranational bodies - only a shift of level where that sovereignty is being exerted. The "loss of sovereignty" by joining supranational organisations is in fact a misconception that lay at the heart of the Brexit controversy from the very beginning - as far as there was any notable controversy and not just a hysterical shouting match from either side.

In short, Mogherini rightly points to the jointly exerted sovereignty of European countries and for the same reason multilateral trade agreements aren't less legitimate than bilaterally negotiated ones. On the part of the EU it would furthermore be utterly stupid to allow the UK a divide et impera tactic of negotiating with every EU country by itself. The (geopolitical) strength of the EU lies in its joint economic and demographic weight that allows its members to project power on the international stage they alone would never be able to enact each by itself.

[mongrel]

We now have those who wanted us to Remain within the EU, example of which are on these boards, arguing that there isn’t enough time to prepare for a no deal Brexit, and we had better just scrap the whole thing and start again with another referendum, or extend article 50 to an indefinite period.

There isn't an argument anymore. May has pissed her chances away. unless something dramatic happens in October that is it. Unless the Christmas recess is cancelled there is no more Parliamentary time.The markets recognise this, that's why the £ is struggling against the Euro.

And far as the benefits are concerned the evidence lies with the Remain camp. Britons are already paying the cost of Brexit as this FT article spells out.. There won't be a magical unicorn coming to save our tanking economy. Unless the Government sits down and works out a way forward that is in the interests of the country before the party and a woefully ill-informed electorate, real people will end up seriously financially screwed.


An LSE study estimates that the Brexit vote directly increased inflation by 1.7 percentage points of the 2.7 percentage-point rise in the 12 months after the referendum. And with wage inflation stagnant just over 2 per cent, the increase in inflation caused by the Leave vote has already hurt UK households to the tune of around one week's wages.



The value of Britain’s output is now around 0.9 per cent lower than was possible if the country had voted to stay in the EU. Ironically that equates to almost exactly the amount advertised on the Leave bus, £350m a week lost to the British economy .

These are measurable effects happening now, so cannot be dismissed at 'project fear' or other excuses.

One final thought.


For every 1 per cent of GDP lost, Britain loses £10bn a year of foregone tax revenues 0.9 per cent of GDP has been lost over the five quarters for which data exists, so there has already been a £9bn hit to the public finances. The net annual budgetary contribution to the EU is £8.6 bn. You do the maths.

[caratacus]

There isn't an argument anymore. May has pissed her chances away. unless something dramatic happens in October that is it. Unless the Christmas recess is cancelled there is no more Parliamentary time.The markets recognise this, that's why the £ is struggling against the Euro.

And far as the benefits are concerned the evidence lies with the Remain camp. Britons are already paying the cost of Brexit as this FT article spells out.. There won't be a magical unicorn coming to save our tanking economy. Unless the Government sits down and works out a way forward that is in the interests of the country before the party and a woefully ill-informed electorate, real people will end up seriously financially screwed.

An LSE study estimates that the Brexit vote directly increased inflation by 1.7 percentage points of the 2.7 percentage-point rise in the 12 months after the referendum. And with wage inflation stagnant just over 2 per cent, the increase in inflation caused by the Leave vote has already hurt UK households to the tune of around one week's wages.
The value of Britain’s output is now around 0.9 per cent lower than was possible if the country had voted to stay in the EU. Ironically that equates to almost exactly the amount advertised on the Leave bus, £350m a week lost to the British economy .

These are measurable effects happening now, so cannot be dismissed at 'project fear' or other excuses.

There is important ommission in your negative assesment, which I cannot entirely dismiss, and that is we have not left the EU yet, nothing has happened. It is this inaction which is the root cause of those aspects you mention, not Brexit itself, because in that I know we would disagree a lot more.

UK economy bounces back as GDP grows 0.4% following Beast from the East cold snap
The UK economy grew 0.4% in the three months to June with the help of retail sales and construction.
https://news.sky.com/story/economy-b...-snap-11468271
The Office for National Statistics said the economy grew 0.4% in the three months to the end of June, as was widely expected, up from 0.2% in the first quarter.
In June alone, the economy gained 0.1% after a 0.3% rise in May. Annual growth picked up slightly to 1.3%.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp

What surely you should be concerned with, as any Briton should, is why we have such a situation happened in the first place. We have had 2 solid years of seemingly nothing but discussion. Everytime you read a paper, switch on a radio or television it is full of nothing but Brexit. All other public policy has been placed on the back burner for it and the Country is in a sate of limbo. Britons are sick of it and is a laughing stock globally, with even Donald Trump getting his quip in at the PMs expense. What should have been a trigger, for the Country to mobilise into action and prepare for a new change for the better, has been the mere signal for everybody to sit on their hands and hum a merry tune, piped by the EU.

It has been one of the worst handled pieces of legislation I have ever witnessed and Theresa may should resign when the Parliament meets in the Autumn with the calling of an election. Any attempts at a further delay by an extension of Article 50 or calling another referendum is completely unacceptable and should make the Gervenments position untenable in my opinion.

[mongrel]

There is important ommission in your negative assesment, which I cannot entirely dismiss, and that is we have not left the EU yet, nothing has happened. It is this inaction which is the root cause of those aspects you mention, not Brexit itself, because in that I know we would disagree a lot more.

That is a fair comment. A competent administration would at least have the appearance of handling this, with proper funding I might add.

What surely you should be concerned with, as any Briton should, is why we have such a situation happened in the first place. We have had 2 solid years of seemingly nothing but discussion. Everytime you read a paper, switch on a radio or television it is full of nothing but Brexit. All other public policy has been placed on the back burner for it and the Country is in a sate of limbo. Britons are sick of it and is a laughing stock globally, with even Donald Trump getting his quip in at the PMs expense. What should have been a trigger, for the Country to mobilise into action and prepare for a new change for the better, has been the mere signal for everybody to sit on their hands and hum a merry tune, piped by the EU.

It has been one of the worst handled pieces of legislation I have ever witnessed and Theresa may should resign when the Parliament meets in the Autumn with the calling of an election. Any attempts at a further delay by an extension of Article 50 or calling another referendum is completely unacceptable and should make the Gervenments position untenable in my opinion.

To be fair the EU didn't ask for this, strictly speaking they have no obligation to do anything and neither does the UK. In March all EU treaty arrangements are vod and that's it. It's the very idea that all the new treaty arrangements could be dealt with in 2 years, so as allow time for the Tories to prepare for the next general election, that was the daft idea, about as realistic as the day one objectives for the Battle of Passchendale. And it is not one piece of legislation, I understand there are over 1000 pieces , primary and secondary, with the primary bitterly contsted in both houses.. other than the Finance Bill essentials not much more is being done this Parliament. Effectively Brexit has paralysed government.I agree with you, it is a total cluster... But my view is that the nation should be informed that it is and decide for themselves whether or not this farce should continue, and whether they are prepared to pay for it.

[mongrel]

Here's a summary found on Twitter, not meant to be serious, but a fair comment on the August state of play.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[mongrel]

I feel sorry for anyone called Zytomir Zablocki.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/exclus...tically-2018-8

[Copperknickers II]

Just a reminder that there have now been proven funding irregularities in both the official Vote Leave campaign https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8430191.html and the largest unofficial campaign, Leave.eu. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-eu-referendum. This in addition to the blatantly misleading Brexit Bus and other campaign lies. I think the only option is a referendum on the final deal, the previous one had too many problems to be considered the Biblical scripture that it is frequently invoked as. That will take the pressure off of the Prime Minister and allow her to force through a workable deal (probably towards the Hard Brexit side). The Soft Brexiteers and Remainers will be less willing to obstruct and try to water down a Hard Brexit deal if they know that the British people will eventually have their say, with a strong likelihood they'll reject it and bring us out of this long nightmare. The Soft Brexiteers won't be happy, but that's the least damaging option right now.

[Iskar]

I agree with that, the only problem with this is that another referendum costs a lot of time (let alone money) and time is essentially short in this whole matter due to Mrs May and her cabinet wasting lots of it by trying to weasle around clear committments or concrete ideas for more than a year after the first referendum.

[NorseThing]

There is always time for one more vote or at least there is until the power structure is satisfied with the vote. This was May's problem and will be with her until she leaves government service as a Prime Minister. She had nothing to put forward for a new vote and she did feel an honest obligation to honor the vote. Politicians always want to kick the can down the road, but in this case the time for that ended with the Brexit vote.

Almost two-thirds of Scottish voters believe the Westminster government is ignoring their concerns during Brexit negotiations, and there is now more support in Scotland for remaining in the EU than at the time of the 2016 referendum, polling suggests.
According to research for the People’s Vote campaign, 66% of Scottish voters (excluding don’t knows) support staying in the EU, compared with 62% who voted for remain in the referendum.
The YouGov poll of 2,013 adults in Scotland, conducted in early August, also found that 48% wanted a public vote on the outcome of Brexit negotiations, compared with 45% across the whole of the UK.
About 600 people are expected to attend a rally in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of another vote on Brexit, as part of a summer of action coordinated by the People’s Vote campaign.
Among Scottish National party supporters, 83% wanted to stay in the EU, 66% backed a people’s vote on Brexit and 18% opposed a people’s vote.
Labour supporters in Scotland favoured remain by 74% to 26% and a people’s vote by 64% to 21%.
The majority of Scottish Labour voters wanted the party’s UKleader, Jeremy Corbyn, to shift his stance on Brexit, with 44% saying he should oppose Brexit more strongly, 22% saying he should support Brexit more strongly, and 11% saying he had the balance “about right”.
In contrast, 29% of SNP supporters wanted their party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, to oppose Brexit more strongly, 13% wanted her to support Brexit more strongly and 45% believed she had got the balance right.
Among all Scottish voters, 43% felt Brexit would make Scottish independence more likely within the next decade.
Peter Kellner, a polling expert and former president of YouGov, said: “Support for a public vote on the outcome is growing across the UK but is particularly strong in Scotland where most people did not want to leave in the first place. There is deep pessimism about what Brexit will mean for Scotland and the next generation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ters-on-brexit


of course all opposed want another vote and yet another vote. Never ends. The longer this drags on, the more political opportunity there will be for mischief under the guise of fixing a previous vote. This Scottish party is simply being opportunistic with their scheduled rally.