UKC

Post referendum and with Farage gone to retire on his MEP's salary UKIP will evaporate into the night. To which party will most UKIP party voters go to, particularly in the marginal seats?

In reply to kevin stephens:

They will go back to being a Tory.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Having successfully pushed this far, they will regroup and start pushing further (or be replaced by a new party which does).

If Leave voters are unhappy with the end result, or the process, of leaving the EU, they'll get a big boost from that.

There's a chance the Tories could absorb a big chunk of their support by becoming a bit more like them. They'd risk losing the centre ground voters, but I'm not sure there's really anyone there to mop those up.

It's all a bit grim.

In reply to kevin stephens:

UKIP will become stronger, and absorb the many Labour voters frustrated and let down by the refusal of Brexit.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I took the time to watch the UKIP conference on TV last year because I was interested to see their strange views on energy policy. There did not seem to be a single person capable of being attractive to the disgruntled electorate in the way that Farage was. It will always be a home to those with extreme views but I can't see them hanging onto a mass vote

In reply to Big Ger:


What do you mean the refusal of Brexit? Most labour voters were in favour of remaining?

In reply to RyanOsborne:

About a third weren't, which is a lot of voters.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Like most political parties, their views are quite wide ranging but in UKIP's case, they had the "Out of Europe" policy to unite them. Now that is sort of in motion and without the Farage "charisma", I on't think they'll be a coherent voice that will appeal to many but I guess we'll see.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Also... how is Brexit being "refused"? It only happened a week and a half ago, do you think these people are already wondering why we haven't yet severed all ties?

Or do you mean the disappointment they will suffer when they realise we can't have everything the leave camp said we could?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

All the news reports are bout how it will be avoided, currently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-draw-so-brexit-...

In reply to Big Ger:


UKIP will have no purpose if UK becomes independent from the EU. They will either dissolve or reveal what they are truly about. I doubt they will last. The last time Farage stepped away they started to fight bitterly amongst themselves. The voters will probably go mainly to the Tories and others will go to more extreme right wing groups.

In reply to Big Ger:

There are some reports about how it might not happen, yes. They aren't the majority though, and none of the candidates to lead the conservative party are saying anything other than they accept the result.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

My point was speculative.

In reply to Big Ger:




All the news reports are not about how it will be avoided http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36707573
It's almost like making things up is a compulsion for you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
A little hyperbole on my part. Surely you are not going to claim that Bredxit potentially not occurring has been a major story since Boris resigned?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/06/economist-explain...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/world/europe/brexit-bregret-european-unio...

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/infographic-this-is-how-a-brexit-can-be-a...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-latest-news-slovakia-...

https://www.rt.com/uk/349135-brexit-vote-draw-leave/

In reply to Big Ger:

Unlike you I wrote what I meant, I didn't make it up, I'm not claiming anything I haven't said. None of your links are even from this week.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36700350

In reply to Big Ger:

Yay, well done you. But hang on, that's ensuring our (the UK's, not Australia's) democratic process is followed rather than preventing the UK leaving. Don't you like democracy?

In reply to kevin stephens:

The next logical step is for them to join the English Democrats, with their catchy slogan of "I am English, not British!" and their swanky campaign videos youtube.com/watch?v=NJYctoNKbcE&

In reply to Sir Chasm:


What on earth are you babbling on about? Where has anyone suggested the democratic process should not be followed?

In reply to Mr Lopez:


which everyone will describe as far right, hate driven, inward looking etc... but if you swap the word English for Scottish, it suddenly becomes more acceptable!?

ps. I'm no fan of any of them, just pointing out there is a level of hypocrisy in terms of how nationalism is viewed and accepted.

In reply to Big Ger:

You eventually posted a link (with no comment) to "prove" your claim that "all the news reports" are about avoiding brevity. But your link doesn't show brexit avoidance, unless you think parliament shouldn't have a say.
Keep on making things up though.

In reply to summo:

It is not nationalism that makes somebody far right, hate driven, inward looking etc. It is being a far right, hate driven, inward looking asshole that does it, and that's the difference between your average Scottish nationalist and the lovely chaps at the BNP or the English Democrats.

There's more colours out there than black and white. In fact, there's a whole spectrum of colours and shades for anyone with the capacty to see.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


far point, was no nationalist hatred being generated by the SNP supporters in the Scottish Referendum. Everyone got on very amicably, reasoned debates and it never became a taboo topic between neighbours, family or folk in their workplaces.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

...and is there honey still for tea?

In reply to Big Ger:


Mishcon de Reya's clients argue that under the UK constitution the decision to trigger

There is no written British constitution, so they will have a hard job proving that one.

" Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but {an unwritten} one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. Professor Robert Blackburn explains this system, including Magna Carta's place within it, and asks whether the UK should now have a written constitution."

In reply to Jim C:


Lots of hours of lawyers time, innit...

Ka-ching!

In reply to Jim C:

It does have a constitution, though. You accept as much yourself with your unattributed quote - "does not have a codified constitution but (an unwritten) one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions". All of which are written down, just not in one single document labelled "Constitution" - the "unwritten" bit is a common description, but it isn't correct.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Sorry it was the British Library website ,
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution

In reply to andyfallsoff:


They should therefore not referenced a constitution ,but they should have said which "Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions" they were referring to and would be challenging ( then we could look it up, and see for ourselves)

My guess is that any legal challenge will take so long as to be overtaken by events that will follow after we have a new PM.

In reply to Jim C:

Fair enough. It is in practice a constitution, which is why it is referred to as such. Agreed our system is more opaque than those countries which have a nice citizen friendly doc titled "constitution", but the areas of uncertainty are usually fairly limited.