Why May's approach to Brexit is providing the ideal conditions for Ukip's revival

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,139
1,925
113
The British Establishment thinks it can ignore the people's democratic decision and allow Britain to leave the EU in name only without there being any repercussions.

But it seems to have forgotten one thing: Ukip...

Features

Ukip is back thanks to the Chequers backlash

Theresa May’s approach to Brexit is providing the ideal conditions for the party’s revival


Matthew Goodwin




Matthew Goodwin
28 July 2018
The Spectator

The UK Independence Party might be about to make a comeback. Ever since Theresa May’s Chequers deal on Brexit, which went down very badly indeed among grassroots Conservatives and Leavers, the opinion polls have been kind to the Purple Army.

The week after the Chequers deal went public, one pollster found support for the party had surged by five points to 8 per cent. It might not sound like much, but it is its best showing since March last year. Furthermore, such numbers are more than enough to tilt the balance at the next general election toward Jeremy Corbyn and Labour.

Indeed, it is no coincidence that as Ukip recovered in the polls, the Conservatives found themselves trailing Labour, with one survey handing Jeremy Corbyn a five-point lead — his second highest of the year (Corbyn only needs a two-point swing to get into coalition territory and a five-point swing for a majority). Amid a tight race with Labour, the Tories cannot afford a rebooted revolt on the right.

There are other signs that the self-anointed People’s Army might be about to come off life support. One insider tells me that the party has attracted 2,500 new members since Chequers and around 3,000 in total since the spring. Membership is still a long way from the peak of 40,000 recorded during 2014-2015, but with an estimated 23,000 recruits this still represents a sizeable rebellion to the right of the Conservatives.

More recent polls suggest that nearly 40 per cent of all voters would be open to supporting a new party that was firmly committed to Brexit (which surges to 67 per cent of Conservative voters), while 24 per cent would support an explicitly far-right, anti-immigrant and anti-Islamism party, which should sound a warning note. Ukip 2.0 may well be distinctly less cuddly than the original. It should also be remembered that today we are dealing with an electorate that is far more fluid and less tribal than in earlier years. The perfect cocktail to revive Ukip was never hard to find; start with a ‘BRINO’ (Brexit In Name Only), throw in a liberal immigration policy that looks and sounds a lot like freedom of movement, then add a splash of political denial in Westminster. It is therefore no surprise to find Ukip enjoying a renaissance as a radical right party.

None of this has escaped the attention of Nigel Farage, who stepped down as Ukip’s leader in July 2016 but who is clearly mulling a possible return to the ring. Farage has already committed himself to returning to frontline politics if Article 50 is suspended. But in recent days he went further by stating he would ‘very seriously consider’ putting his name forward to run as Ukip leader if the Chequers compromise is not broken and Brexit is not put ‘back on track’.

All of this flies in the face of earlier predictions that populism is dead in Britain. The argument that the 2016 Brexit referendum had finally put a lid on backlash politics was never a particularly convincing one. On the contrary, the emergence of an army of ‘betrayed Brexiteers’ always looked likely given the mismatch between the vision of Brexit held by many in Westminster and the much cleaner break from Europe favoured by grassroots conservatives.

A similarly flawed argument did the rounds in Brussels and went a bit like this: to show their opposition to the British, Europeans have turned their backs on anti-EU populist parties. Two years on and take a look around Europe: the populist Sweden Democrats (who want a Swexit) just reached no. 1 in the polls; the populist Alternative for Germany are no. 2; the populist Northern League and Five Star are running Italy; the populist Freedom Party is in a coalition in Austria; Slovenia has lurched right; and more than six in ten Hungarians are backing Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz or the formerly neo-fascist Jobbik. If this is a Europe where populism is in full retreat, then I would hate to see the alternative.


Ukip leader Gerard Batten

Back in Britain, several tributaries now seem to be flowing toward Ukip, or at least the space previously occupied by the party. The largest comprises angry Eurosceptics and grassroots social conservatives who feel betrayed by Brexit. Consider their reaction to the current state of affairs: 76 per cent of Leavers feel that the Prime Minister’s government is negotiating Brexit ‘badly’; 66 per cent believe her vision of Brexit is ‘too soft’; nearly 60 per cent think that the Chequers deal disrespects the referendum result; and half want Mrs May to resign. In fact, among all voters, the Prime Minister’s leadership ratings this week sunk to a record low, while among Leavers her net positive rating has crashed from +10 to -23 in only two months.

These numbers are dismal for a Prime Minister who sought to speak for social conservatives in a way that David Cameron did not. But they are also especially problematic for a Conservative party that since the 2016 referendum has become more dependent on the groups that voted for Brexit; the working-class, true-blue Tories, and non–graduates, many of whom had also voted Ukip in the past. Put simply, this is a profoundly different electorate from that which supported Cameron in 2015 — it is more pro-‘hard’ Brexit, more opposed to immigration and more socially conservative. Some 70 per cent of Tory voters now regard themselves as Leavers. The problem for the Prime Minister and indeed the Tory party is not simply that their voters are disgruntled with the direction of Brexit but that it is precisely those voters who have a pre-existing relationship with Ukip who feel so angry.

But it would be a mistake to view Ukip’s recent recovery solely as a result of the Tory fallout. Also important is how a handful of prominent right-wing social media activists, who typically eschew party politics, have called on their (hundreds of thousands) of followers to enrol in Ukip. Paul Joseph Watson might be an unfamiliar name to readers but he has amassed around 882,000 followers on Twitter by attacking political correctness, Islam, refugees, identity liberalism and what he and his audience argue is excessive virtue signalling across the West.

Figures such as Watson, as well as Raheem Kassam — Nigel Farage’s former chief of staff and a close ally of Steve Bannon — are linked to an increasingly international campaign to support the jailed Tommy Robinson, ex-leader of the English Defence League. His supporters argue that he has been silenced from reporting on ‘grooming gangs’ and other Islam-related topics due to political correctness and a clampdown on free speech (Robinson was actually imprisoned for contempt of court.)


Ukip's Raheem Kassam — Nigel Farage’s former chief of staff and a close ally of Steve Bannon — is linked to an increasingly international campaign to support the jailed Tommy Robinson, ex-leader of the English Defence League

Unlike the Ukip of old, the party’s current leader, Gerard Batten, has been more than willing to enter this orbit in the search for new members and resources, developing links with the pro-Robinson campaign and other groups such as the Democratic Football Lads Alliance. Batten shares many of their views, having variously referred to Islam as a ‘death cult’, described Muhammad as a ‘paedophile’ and warned of an ‘explosion’ of mosques across Europe. To these tributaries we can also add blue-collar workers in more northern Labour seats who loathe the social liberalism and internationalism of their mainly middle-class MPs, and who are looking for meaningful reform on the issue of freedom of movement.

This is a long way away from the climate to which Ukip had become accustomed after the Brexit vote. In the shadow of the Brexiteers’ historic triumph, the party seemed destined for the political graveyard. It took two decades to find political relevance — and less than two years to stage a dramatic collapse. It shed members, money and morale, as well as Farage, who traded politics for media. Ukip also whittled through three leaders, each as ineffectual as the last. Diane James, Paul Nuttall and Henry Bolton each proved unable to halt what looked set to be an inevitable decline. Between the 2015 and 2017 general elections, the party haemorrhaged 3.2 million voters and saw its vote share crash by more than ten points to a derisory 1.8 per cent. Further humiliation followed at this year’s local elections when Ukip did not even qualify for an election broadcast and lost all but three of the 126 seats it was defending, prompting one Kipper to compare his party to the Black Death.

But amid the favourable turn of events, Ukip also finds itself faced with some big questions. The most obvious is whether the party can exploit the current openings. Some insiders openly voice doubts about Batten, including his willingness to indulge toxic groups that would alienate the much larger audience of middle-class conservatives. Explaining the markedly different fortunes of the far-right BNP with the pre-2016 Ukip would not be a difficult essay question to answer. Some also voice anxiety over Batten’s reluctance to engage wholeheartedly with the media.

Another problem is that not everybody in Ukip Land would necessarily welcome the return of Farage. Some influential activists feel that their former leader vacated the pitch at a crucial moment and has since spent more time on the search for media exposure and money than on the battle for Brexit. In the words of one insider: ‘Nigel just assumes that he can walk back in now things are looking good. But he’s spent the past few years slagging off the party, has pissed off a lot of people and also threw his weight behind a series of weak leaders. Batten is the only one who has stabilised us.’ There is also frustration among some senior Kippers that Farage has not fully put his support behind the party: ‘Batten can do things that Nigel cannot, like organise shit at the grassroots level. Nobody is pretending Gerard is a media performer like Nigel, but the thing that grates for a lot of people is that Nigel is not even using his platforms to tell people to join Ukip.’

Meanwhile, some donors are anxious to avoid the return of the divisive Arron Banks, a close ally of Farage, and have let it be known they would withdraw their funding if the old gang were once again to dominate the party. So, while there is unquestionably new demand for a Ukip-style party, the question is whether Ukip as it stands can supply this audience with a unified message and membership — and whether Farage is capable of leading it.

One of the unwritten laws in politics is that challenger parties don’t last long. Either their clothes are stolen by the mainstream, they implode amid infighting, or the political debate simply moves on. It was their short lifespan that led the historian Richard Hofstadter to observe more than half a century ago that challengers are like bees: once they have stung, they die. But in Britain this unwritten law could be about to be tested. Things are looking up for Ukip — it may well be that it is more of a wasp than a bee, and could yet deliver further stings to Britain’s increasingly volatile political system.

Spectator.co.uk/podcast Matthew Goodwin and Joe Twyman on Ukip.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/ukip-is-back-thanks-to-the-chequers-backlash/
 
Last edited:

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
The reason for all this mess is that the referendum question was poorly worded. To 'leave' the EU could mean one of many different things. Even adopting the Norwegian model would technically equate with leaving the EU.

Please, I beg you, make sure the next referendum question presents a clearer alternative. I'd go for unilateral free trade personally, but whatever, just make sure that the alternative to staying in the EU is a clear one and not just the ambiguous 'leave' but leave for what, who know?

In fact, I'm not even sure that Nigel Farage has a clear idea of what kind of Brexit he wants. Whatever alternative is presented, he complains but never offers an alternative. FFS Farage, present a clear alternative already!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
61,175
9,932
113
Washington DC
I continue to favor a hard Brexit. Nullify all treaties, compacts, trade agreements, and deals with the EU or any of its member nations, go back to ground zero, and build up from there as all parties wish.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,139
1,925
113
The reason for all this mess is that the referendum question was poorly worded. To 'leave' the EU could mean one of many different things. Even adopting the Norwegian model would technically equate with leaving the EU.

Please, I beg you, make sure the next referendum question presents a clearer alternative. I'd go for unilateral free trade personally, but whatever, just make sure that the alternative to staying in the EU is a clear one and not just the ambiguous 'leave' but leave for what, who know?

In fact, I'm not even sure that Nigel Farage has a clear idea of what kind of Brexit he wants. Whatever alternative is presented, he complains but never offers an alternative. FFS Farage, present a clear alternative already!

Stop with the Remoan lies that the people didn't know what they were voting for. We knew exactly what we were voting for and we would like to see it implemented:

COFFEE HOUSE

Voting ‘leave’ meant leaving the single market – and most voters knew it

Brendan O'Neill
19 January 2017
The Spectator



The angrier, snootier sections of the Remain camp have done many bad things since 23 June. Some have suggested Brexit should be overthrown. Others have issued terrible libels against Leave voters, branding them ‘low information’ and xenophobic. Witness Nick Clegg in this Guardian video published this week having a good old laugh at Sheffield people who voted for Brexit after apparently falling for the ‘emotionally pungent’ claims of Leave leaders.

But worst of all has been their sly rewriting of history. They’re engaged in a campaign to misremember the referendum, to depict it as a time of lies and idiocy, of racism unleashed. They’ve cranked up the memory holes, sharpened their redacting pens, and set about imposing a kind of collective amnesia, using the tactics of Soviet ‘forgetters’ to rustle up a narrative that says the referendum moment was a mad one. But it wasn’t.

Consider the irate response to Theresa May’s speech. Remainers’ loudest cry is that people didn’t vote to leave the single market, as May now says we will. ‘A reckless exit from the single market was not on the ballot paper,’ says Tim Farron. The public didn’t know that legging it from the single market was a possibility, observers insist.

This is untrue; political amnesia. That Leave could, and very likely would, lead to withdrawal from the single market was a central talking point of the referendum. Michael Gove, one of the most senior figures on the Leave side, said it. Out loud. In May. Voting Leave would ideally mean Britain being ‘outside the single market but [having] access to it,’ he said. Other Leavers regularly slammed the single market. David Davis laid into the ‘burdens of the single market regulations’. Vote Leave’s campaign bumf was packed with criticisms. ‘[T]he single market does more harm than good,’ it said.

Leading Remainers also made it clear that voting Leave would likely entail pulling Britain out of the single market. David Cameron said: ‘What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.’ George Osborne echoed him: ‘We would be out of the single market.’ There you go: the two then most powerful men in Britain saying Leave would mean leaving the single market.

Were there disagreements in the Leave camp over the single market? Of course. It was a big, mixed coalition. But Leave was shot through either with doubt or outright hostility towards the single market. It is a myth — dare I say a lie — to say people didn’t know single-market membership would be thrown into question by their voting Leave. They knew this very well. We can deduce that they voted Leave either because they also wanted to leave the single market or because they believed the risk of leaving the single market was a price worth paying for getting out of the EU oligarchy. In fact, a YouGov poll this week shows that 74 percent of Leave voters want a hard Brexit. Among the population more broadly, 39 percent want a hard Brexit and 25 percent a soft Brexit. People didn’t know single-market membership was at risk? An insulting lie.

This is only one of the ways in which the referendum months are misremembered. What is fast becoming the established narrative also tells us people were hoodwinked by loudmouth politicians. Nope. Polls before the referendum showed that a paltry 8 percent of those intending to vote Leave trusted politicians on the issue of the EU, while more than 60 percent said it would be ‘better to rely on ordinary people’ when making up one’s mind. Led astray by demagogic leaders? More mythmaking.

The narrative says Brexit is Farage’s victory. It’s his Britain now, apparently. At the level of basic numbers this doesn’t add up. Ukip got 3.9 million votes at the 2015 General Election; Leave got 17.4 million votes. Those 13.5 million people who oppose the EU but have not voted for Ukip are casually airbrushed away. We’re told newspapers like the Daily Mail warped the masses’ minds with Europhobic nonsense. The Mail has a circulation of just 2.2 million. And 34 percent of its readers voted Remain. There are millions who don’t read these papers and yet who voted Leave. Perhaps — and I know this might sound shocking — they thought for themselves?

The narrative says the referendum was a swirl of racial fears. It wasn’t. Aside from one dodgy Ukip poster, swiftly taken down, the debate was principled, not prejudiced. Lord Ashcroft’s post-referendum poll found only 33 percent of Leave voters gave immigration as their ‘main reason’ for voting out. Subsequent polls show big majorities of Brits, including Leaver Brits, want EU migrants to stay here. A majority of Leave voters, just shy of 50 percent, said they voted on the principle that ‘decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK’. They acted from democratic conviction, not racial panic.

The worst part of the misremembering is its wiping of key players from the historical record. The depiction of Leave as the victory of ‘demagogues’ like Farage scrubs out Gisela Stuart, the coolest voice of Leave, who spoke to millions via TV debates. And Dreda Say Mitchell, the south London novelist who braved Question Time and live debates with Will Self to put the left-wing case for Leave. And Trade Unionists Against the EU, which met and debated with workers and convinced many the EU is a bad thing. These people, good, serious people, muddy the narrative about Brexit being a victory of hard-right blowhards and so they must be forgotten, written out, historically destroyed. The misremembering is as nasty as it is cavalier.

The rash media response to May’s speech is important for what it tells us about how the Brexit Revolt is being recorded. What was a stirring moment of deep reasoning, with vast swathes of the public turning away from politicians and the media to talk to each other, as a good demos does, is being duplicitously recorded as a hysterical episode, a lie-ridden, prejudice-packed pock on British history. This mustn’t stand. The referendum was one of the sanest political moments I can remember, in which citizens took their electoral responsibilities incredibly seriously, vast swathes of them voting from a love of democratic law-making. Don’t let bitter losers bury this brilliant historic moment with lies.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/voting-leave-meant-leaving-single-market-voters-knew/
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
I continue to favor a hard Brexit. Nullify all treaties, compacts, trade agreements, and deals with the EU or any of its member nations, go back to ground zero, and build up from there as all parties wish.

The referendum alternative never specified it so clearly.

Stop with the Remoan lies that the people didn't know what they were voting for. We knew exactly what we were voting for and we would like to see it implemented:

COFFEE HOUSE

Voting ‘leave’ meant leaving the single market – and most voters knew it

Brendan O'Neill
19 January 2017
The Spectator



The angrier, snootier sections of the Remain camp have done many bad things since 23 June. Some have suggested Brexit should be overthrown. Others have issued terrible libels against Leave voters, branding them ‘low information’ and xenophobic. Witness Nick Clegg in this Guardian video published this week having a good old laugh at Sheffield people who voted for Brexit after apparently falling for the ‘emotionally pungent’ claims of Leave leaders.

But worst of all has been their sly rewriting of history. They’re engaged in a campaign to misremember the referendum, to depict it as a time of lies and idiocy, of racism unleashed. They’ve cranked up the memory holes, sharpened their redacting pens, and set about imposing a kind of collective amnesia, using the tactics of Soviet ‘forgetters’ to rustle up a narrative that says the referendum moment was a mad one. But it wasn’t.

Consider the irate response to Theresa May’s speech. Remainers’ loudest cry is that people didn’t vote to leave the single market, as May now says we will. ‘A reckless exit from the single market was not on the ballot paper,’ says Tim Farron. The public didn’t know that legging it from the single market was a possibility, observers insist.

This is untrue; political amnesia. That Leave could, and very likely would, lead to withdrawal from the single market was a central talking point of the referendum. Michael Gove, one of the most senior figures on the Leave side, said it. Out loud. In May. Voting Leave would ideally mean Britain being ‘outside the single market but [having] access to it,’ he said. Other Leavers regularly slammed the single market. David Davis laid into the ‘burdens of the single market regulations’. Vote Leave’s campaign bumf was packed with criticisms. ‘[T]he single market does more harm than good,’ it said.

Leading Remainers also made it clear that voting Leave would likely entail pulling Britain out of the single market. David Cameron said: ‘What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.’ George Osborne echoed him: ‘We would be out of the single market.’ There you go: the two then most powerful men in Britain saying Leave would mean leaving the single market.

Were there disagreements in the Leave camp over the single market? Of course. It was a big, mixed coalition. But Leave was shot through either with doubt or outright hostility towards the single market. It is a myth — dare I say a lie — to say people didn’t know single-market membership would be thrown into question by their voting Leave. They knew this very well. We can deduce that they voted Leave either because they also wanted to leave the single market or because they believed the risk of leaving the single market was a price worth paying for getting out of the EU oligarchy. In fact, a YouGov poll this week shows that 74 percent of Leave voters want a hard Brexit. Among the population more broadly, 39 percent want a hard Brexit and 25 percent a soft Brexit. People didn’t know single-market membership was at risk? An insulting lie.

This is only one of the ways in which the referendum months are misremembered. What is fast becoming the established narrative also tells us people were hoodwinked by loudmouth politicians. Nope. Polls before the referendum showed that a paltry 8 percent of those intending to vote Leave trusted politicians on the issue of the EU, while more than 60 percent said it would be ‘better to rely on ordinary people’ when making up one’s mind. Led astray by demagogic leaders? More mythmaking.

The narrative says Brexit is Farage’s victory. It’s his Britain now, apparently. At the level of basic numbers this doesn’t add up. Ukip got 3.9 million votes at the 2015 General Election; Leave got 17.4 million votes. Those 13.5 million people who oppose the EU but have not voted for Ukip are casually airbrushed away. We’re told newspapers like the Daily Mail warped the masses’ minds with Europhobic nonsense. The Mail has a circulation of just 2.2 million. And 34 percent of its readers voted Remain. There are millions who don’t read these papers and yet who voted Leave. Perhaps — and I know this might sound shocking — they thought for themselves?

The narrative says the referendum was a swirl of racial fears. It wasn’t. Aside from one dodgy Ukip poster, swiftly taken down, the debate was principled, not prejudiced. Lord Ashcroft’s post-referendum poll found only 33 percent of Leave voters gave immigration as their ‘main reason’ for voting out. Subsequent polls show big majorities of Brits, including Leaver Brits, want EU migrants to stay here. A majority of Leave voters, just shy of 50 percent, said they voted on the principle that ‘decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK’. They acted from democratic conviction, not racial panic.

The worst part of the misremembering is its wiping of key players from the historical record. The depiction of Leave as the victory of ‘demagogues’ like Farage scrubs out Gisela Stuart, the coolest voice of Leave, who spoke to millions via TV debates. And Dreda Say Mitchell, the south London novelist who braved Question Time and live debates with Will Self to put the left-wing case for Leave. And Trade Unionists Against the EU, which met and debated with workers and convinced many the EU is a bad thing. These people, good, serious people, muddy the narrative about Brexit being a victory of hard-right blowhards and so they must be forgotten, written out, historically destroyed. The misremembering is as nasty as it is cavalier.

The rash media response to May’s speech is important for what it tells us about how the Brexit Revolt is being recorded. What was a stirring moment of deep reasoning, with vast swathes of the public turning away from politicians and the media to talk to each other, as a good demos does, is being duplicitously recorded as a hysterical episode, a lie-ridden, prejudice-packed pock on British history. This mustn’t stand. The referendum was one of the sanest political moments I can remember, in which citizens took their electoral responsibilities incredibly seriously, vast swathes of them voting from a love of democratic law-making. Don’t let bitter losers bury this brilliant historic moment with lies.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/voting-leave-meant-leaving-single-market-voters-knew/

If you'd read the referendum question, it said leave the EU, not the single market. There is a difference. Don't you know English?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,139
1,925
113
The referendum alternative never specified it so clearly.



If you'd read the referendum question, it said leave the EU, not the single market. There is a difference. Don't you know English?

It didn't need to say "Leave the single market" because that's what people KNEW they would be voting for if they voted Leave, as the Remain camp itself explicitly said many times during the referendum campaign that a vote to leave the EU would also mean leaving the single market.

So when the Remain camp now say we must stay in the single market they are backtracking on what they said during the campaign; and when they say that "The people didn't necessarily vote to leave the single market" they are, rather obviously, lying.

David Cameron was OBSESSED! 28 times in a 50 minute interview/Q&A during the referendum campaign he equated 'Leaving EU with Leaving the EU's Internal (Single) Market". Pundits who say Brexiters didn't know they voted to "Leave the Single Market" need to rewatch David Cameron before 23rd June.

 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
61,175
9,932
113
Washington DC
I favor a stealth Brexit which occurs without comment.


Wouldn't that be great? Ain't gonna happen.

I hope Blackshirt and whoever he's parroting at the moment are right, though. The more power the imbecilic BNP-Lite has in Britain, the better it is for the rest of the world.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
You are correct. Would you like to make any more statements demonstrating your commendable grasp of the patently obvious?

I think Blackleaf needs help with it though.

It didn't need to say "Leave the single market" because that's what people KNEW they would be voting for if they voted Leave, as the Remain camp itself explicitly said many times during the referendum campaign that a vote to leave the EU would also mean leaving the single market.

So when the Remain camp now say we must stay in the single market they are backtracking on what they said during the campaign; and when they say that "The people didn't necessarily vote to leave the single market" they are, rather obviously, lying.

David Cameron was OBSESSED! 28 times in a 50 minute interview/Q&A during the referendum campaign he equated 'Leaving EU with Leaving the EU's Internal (Single) Market". Pundits who say Brexiters didn't know they voted to "Leave the Single Market" need to rewatch David Cameron before 23rd June.


Who cares what Cameron said? The referendum question never specified it.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
I've voted in two big referenda in Quebec and mealy-mouthed questions were a big issue, there.

Ah like the ambiguous authorizing the government of Quebec to negotiate separation or something of the sort?

I know a few Quebec sovereignists got cold feet when the PQ started pushing its Quebec values Charter. They quickly started to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in horror at what the Pequiste government was pushing. I know at least one BQ member of Parliament got cold feet and turned federalist because of that.

I bet the PQ inflicted more damage on its sovereignist cause in the promotion of that Charter than at any other time in the history of the sovereignty movement... oh, and maybe when Parizeau made his pronouncement about money and the ethnic vote. Ouch!