The normally astute Mr Meeks keeps raising the subject of '£350M/week for the NHS'. £150M (the nett rather than gross cost of the EU) would have been a better sum, to reduce the predictable whinging. We were selling the sizzle, not the sausage, so the precise size of X in the strap-line of '£XM for...' was immaterial.
Because the country post-EU membership, will be able to spend the gross contribution on anything the govt chooses, it is not a totally specious amount.
There are two big points to remember. Very few voted Leave because of NHS funding. And without the assination of Jo Cox, a much bigger margin for out would have resulted. That also would have had a positive effect on the current level of whining.
The £350 million a week claim was emblazoned on the campaign bus and featured heavily in Leave leaflets, it was hardly a throw-away comment, it was a central plank in Leave's campaign and it was no doubt there because focus groups etc showed it swayed votes.
As did threats of punishment budgets, being at the back of the queue and the end of western civilisation. This really is most tedious, both sides lied through their teeth, the public voted. We have a result. A dwindling number of the public have the remotest interest in another vote, its not going to happen, so perhaps we should move on ?
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
Mr. B, May wanted a reciprocal agreement with the EU to protect EU citizens here and UK citizens in the EU. The EU has refused to negotiate or make a simple agreement for the interim.
As I said, I'm underwhelmed by May and suspect she'll prove something of a failure, but this is not a valid area to criticise her. Guaranteeing rights for foreigners without getting the same for Britons is not acceptable.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
If, as seems likely, growth will be lower than would be the case if we remain in the Single Market, we won't have £350 million extra a week to spend. Any money saved from contributions to EU budget will have to be spent on plugging gaps in existing spending commitments.
And, of course, if we continue to make payments in one form or another, the £350 million will be lower in the first place.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
With all due respect to the Leavers recent posting (which is probably too close to zero IMHO to be worth measurement) the "Four Horsemen" appeared on 'Day 1' it's just that you didn't see them. My business arranging holidays in the EU couldn't survive the instant 20% devaluation in our currency as our margin was 10% and I had to close it once our bookings made it unprofitable.
Why didn't you recast your business to arranging holidays in the UK for people from the Eurozone ?
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
And, of course, if we continue to make payments in one form or another, the £350 million will be lower in the first place.
Happily until Gisela Stuart, Cummings or Eliott are leading the country it wont be an issue, since both Mrs May and Mr Hammond both campaigned and voted against it, and even if they are, it still wont be an issue while Corbyn is leading Labour.
Well, North Sea oil isn't coming back so there isn't the slightest justification for Barnett, just take the missing money for the £350 million pledge for the NHS England from that...
Barnett is not now and never has been related to North Sea Oil. It is a formula for equalising funding across the 4 parts of the United Kingdom when spending changes are made for England. It is based on proportional populations not income or assets. North Sea Oil plays absolutely no part in it at all.
Richard , you are wasting tiem trying to explain reality to what must be an absolute moron.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
350M was promised. It had better be delivered.
I dont recall either the Chancellor or the PM promising it, perhaps you could point us to a link ?
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
Entirely fictitious? I thought it was the gross figure.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
350M was promised. It had better be delivered.
I don't agree, but I think it will be a reasonable attack line. WILL BE. For someone to ask 'Where's that 350m?' when we are still paying the fees from which the 350m was proposed to be taken is cretinous.
You mean an out of touch toilet paper rag repeats "SNPBAD" despite all teh evidence to the contrary
'toilet paper rag' with three times the circulation of The Nat Onal
SNP....... 'the Nokia of politics'......has a ring to it.......
LOL, are you counting the ones that are used for the sheep. You just need to see the bellends name on the article , that well known SNP lover Alex Bell. If you actually read the guff , he mixes his metaphors to put it mildly , ie SNP and iphone come out at same time and prosper but he compares to Nokia , ie labour who floundered. The man and the idiot of an editor who printed it are obviously not too bright. Though given they are writing for Tories and out of touch tax exiles like you it is irrelevant , any old lie or rubbish will do.
@RobD - it can be. Not getting £350 million a week extra for the NHS :-)
The statement about our growth being lower outside of the single market can't be proven. We'll never know what our growth would have been. We can guess, but there hasn't been a strong track record in that department in recent years.
@RobD - it can be. Not getting £350 million a week extra for the NHS :-)
I think the £350m figure will be met, in a fashion. A £70m increase per year for 5 years, that allows inflation to eat into 60-70% of the figure but also stops the whining and would make the Tories the party of the 52% proper. Especially among those blue Labour supporters in the marginals that the Tories need.
I find the psychology of Leavers fascinating. They want their lies to be consequence free. They want their race baiting to be forgotten. But this isn't a game of cards where we shuffle the pack and move on to the next hand. The cards have memory.
This is true. But it is also true of those on the Remain side. The cards they laid down, both during the campaign, and before and after, also have memory. And will also not be forgotten.
When Brown called that voter asking where all the East Europeans were coming from a sort of "bigoted woman" do you think that that sort of baiting was forgotten?
Both campaigns told lies, both insulted voters, both used immigration and immigrants in distasteful ways (it is distasteful and morally reprehensible, IMO, not to discuss concerns which voters have about immigration, though I share your distaste at the approach which Farage took which went well beyond what I would consider acceptable, sensible or even particularly moral), both made promises which cannot possibly be kept and both were dishonest about what the EU is about, will be about and what the alternatives may be. There is no moral high ground here. Most voters had to make the best decision they could amongst a fog of misinformation and deceit. Had politicians attempted to have a sensible discussion about immigration years before the referendum there would not have been a vacuum for Farage and his ilk to fill. It is a bit much for those politicians now decrying his xenophobia not to realize and take responsibility for the part they played in allowing this to happen.
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
She had included a copy of teh passport with lawyers letter and explained as per the 85 page questionaire had requested. Typical government jobsworth following Tory policy and trying to scare EU citizens for sure. The minions just aping their masters.
"Instead, we are far more likely to see rising consumer spending, rising debt levels, a flood of imports, a gradual build-up of inflation, and, in time, lots more wild lending from the banks as they grow more confident in rising prosperity. This boom may well end up with a crash in 2018 or 2019."
Hard, soft, boom, bust - or perhaps we'll be lucky and get a Goldilocks Brexit, eh?
If, as seems likely, growth will be lower than would be the case if we remain in the Single Market, we won't have £350 million extra a week to spend. Any money saved from contributions to EU budget will have to be spent on plugging gaps in existing spending commitments.
And, of course, if we continue to make payments in one form or another, the £350 million will be lower in the first place.
Reality is we will end up paying more than the £350 million a week for a significantly worse deal and still have the immigration etc.
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
She had included a copy of teh passport with lawyers letter and explained as per the 85 page questionaire had requested. Typical government jobsworth following Tory policy and trying to scare EU citizens for sure. The minions just aping their masters.
Just bog standard government bureaucracy. Currently dealign with the US version... for instance, I had to pay $150 to some lawyer to get them to state that a British doctorate was equivalent to a US doctorate in my application. Pretty absurd.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
That question was not asked - however, a range of questions were asked on whether things would be better if we stayed in the EU/left the EU.
Leave voters, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly thought things would be better if we left the EU across most areas - top ranked are immigration and ability to control our own laws, with the NHS, Border controls, Quality of Life and Welfare system fairness not far behind.
Net better if we left the EU - Leave Voters: Border Controls: +96 Economic Security: +82 Job Prospects: +82 NHS: +95 Welfare System Fairness: +92 Protection vs terrorism: +82 Immigration System: +98 Cost of Living: +69 Control Own Laws: +98 Economy +80 UK Influence: +72 Rights in UK: +90 Investment in UK: +50 Quality of life: +96
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
@AlsoIndigo - May is, of course, given an electoral firewall by Corbyn. But Trump is immensely unpopular in the UK. She should be very careful about getting too close to him as it could end up negating - to an extent at least - attacks on Corbyn for his past actions.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
350M was promised. It had better be delivered.
Who by?
That was the ridiculous thing about the whole campaign. Leave couldn't promise anything as they were not and are not in government.
The responsible thing to do would be for the PM to say what he would do in either scenario rather than ramp up concerns then quit.
The referendum losers are now harping on about 350m, but who are they talking to?
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
350M was promised. It had better be delivered.
I don't agree, but I think it will be a reasonable attack line. WILL BE. For someone to ask 'Where's that 350m?' when we are still paying the fees from which the 350m was proposed to be taken is cretinous.
Only if the Leavers are willing to be open about why they're still paying the fees and what benefits the country gets as a result. If they find this embarrassing it will be a potent attack line.
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
It did not whip up fears about immigration , they were a big reality being ignored by the Tories. It was obvious that a lot of peopel were very unhappy with immigration , never out of the news, and if they got a chance to discuss it woudl poke teh government in the eye over it. Cameron was in his bullingdon millionaires bubble with no clue as to what real life was about and thought he was invincible. the £350M was similar to teh £4300 immediate loss by every person from Osborne , any fool knew it was guff, unhappiness over immigration was a reality that every politician should have known about , but in the free bars and restaurants of Westminste rthey are immune to reality at the sharp end.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
To call £350m 'completely fictitious' takes some neck. It's the gross figure including rebate. Perhaps not the best figure to use but not completely fictitious.
George Osborne's cooked-up 'estimates' of how much more a week's shopping would cost, how much the cost of a holiday would rise, and of course, the crowning turd that was the £4,300/household, really were completely fictitious.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
350M was promised. It had better be delivered.
Who by?
That was the ridiculous thing about the whole campaign. Leave couldn't promise anything as they were not and are not in government.
Presumably if their promises are not delivered they will form a coalition to stand on a manifesto in the next General Election so they can do it themselves? That would be the honourable and democratic course of action.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
And, of course, if we continue to make payments in one form or another, the £350 million will be lower in the first place.
Happily until Gisela Stuart, Cummings or Eliott are leading the country it wont be an issue, since both Mrs May and Mr Hammond both campaigned and voted against it, and even if they are, it still wont be an issue while Corbyn is leading Labour.
What an advert for the democracy much beloved of Leavers - promise what you like to win because you will never be in a position to deliver, ha ha! Doubt many people who voted for Brexit will be as cavalier in their attitudes when the promises aren't delivered
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
How fortunate we have your beliefs to rely on rather than say polling evidence.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
How many people voted because of the infamous £350mn figure?
I think the actual number of hundreds of millions wasn't the point since it was still clearly a lot of money, it was the emphasis on the NHS as an ideal target for it with voters who feel strongly attached to it.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
350M was promised. It had better be delivered.
Who by?
That was the ridiculous thing about the whole campaign. Leave couldn't promise anything as they were not and are not in government.
Presumably if their promises are not delivered they will form a coalition to stand on a manifesto in the next General Election so they can do it themselves? That would be the honourable and democratic course of action.
You are someone who thinks we should ignore the referendum result aren't you>?
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
While you chose to whip up fears about 'carrot crunchers'.
And in your eyes your bigotry is justified but 'their bigotry' isn't.
Take it from them and give it to me. Take it from them and give it to me. Take it from them and give it to me.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
Sorry, wrong room. Grown ups are down the corridor. This room is toddlers only.
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
There you go again. If you're promoting a bad cause, don't blame your opponents for beating you.
Who are these "leavers" that some people keep referring to? Do they mean the voters? Or perhaps it is HMG? Or perhaps people on this site who decided that, on balance, the UK would have a better future out of the EU? Just who are these people who will suffer at the ballot box if or who need to be open or all the rest of the stuff that has been mentioned this morning?
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
Logging onto PB every day currently feels like walking into a pub and finding 100 Nigel Farages there...no matter what the topic starts as it ends up in the same predictable argument over EU.
One of the charms of PB for me when I checked a thread you never knew what the debate that day might be about and often not even political.
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
There you go again. If you're promoting a bad cause, don't blame your opponents for beating you.
You mistake me for an EU enthusiast, as opposed to someone appalled by the manner in which the Leave campaign was conducted. It was an indelible stain on our society.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
You keep saying things like that but how? The treaties are the treaties, as Juncker once said.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
You keep saying things like that but how? The treaties are the treaties, as Juncker once said.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
Au contraire, I suggest that our friends and neighbours would be relieved that we’d seen sense, and would be able to participate in the safe, prosperous ‘this part of the world’ we all want.
Who are these "leavers" that some people keep referring to? Do they mean the voters? Or perhaps it is HMG? Or perhaps people on this site who decided that, on balance, the UK would have a better future out of the EU? Just who are these people who will suffer at the ballot box if or who need to be open or all the rest of the stuff that has been mentioned this morning?
Speaking for myself I use the term to refer to politicians who campaigned for Leave in the referendum on the basis of lies. The sainted Gisela Stuart has been at it again this week with the mendacious report from her organisation Change Britain. I want their ideas to be buried along with their political careers.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
Au contraire, I suggest that our friends and neighbours would be relieved that we’d seen sense, and would be able to participate in the safe, prosperous ‘this part of the world’ we all want.
Hm, I think we would be viewed more as the unreliable partner who just wants to sit in the corner and moan all the time. Not that it is an unfair assessment.
Logging onto PB every day currently feels like walking into a pub and finding 100 Nigel Farages there...no matter what the topic starts as it ends up in the same predictable argument over EU.
One of the charms of PB for me when I checked a thread you never knew what the debate that day might be about and often not even political.
I open PB and depressingly it's more EU Ref Groundhog - I'm missing SIndy threads. Something I never expected.
Mr. D, quite. And the EU would be viewed as the domineering, meddling partner who wants their own way all the time and is quite willing to lie and pester endlessly to get it.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
Au contraire, I suggest that our friends and neighbours would be relieved that we’d seen sense, and would be able to participate in the safe, prosperous ‘this part of the world’ we all want.
For about six months until FN get the French presidency or Grillo the Italian one or one of several other electoral or economic disasters on the horizon catches up with the EU. The idea that if we re-join the EU its going to be plain sailing and sunlit uplands is for the birds, the EU is going to be very lucky to survive the next decade with or without us, and it's usually better to be outside a building when someone dynamites the foundations.
She's making contingency plans for 'no deal'. If one of them isn't 'no Brexit' then I'm David Miliband's banana.
She is? I was under the impression May had no plan!
Well she says she's making contingency plans. She could be making it up I suppose.
She can't include 'no Brexit', however. Negotiations don't start until A50 is triggered. After it is triggered the country will leave the EU automatically after 24 months unless all 27 vote for an extension or reversion. A phrase about snowflakes and Hell springs to mind.
One of the key stupidities of Lisbon/the Constitution/Valery Giscard's ego trip (delete according to taste) is the short time frame and extreme complexity of the divorce process. This is partly because Giscard, being a fanatic, never thought anyone would want to leave the EU and also wanted to make it near-impossible to do so.
Junker, a man cast in a similar mould (and with a very obvious alcohol problem which is impairing his judgement further) has muddied the waters further by appointing Barnier, who has made it clear that he does not actually intend to negotiate or at least, will draw out the process past all reason.
So the options once A50 is triggered are either a fairly basic deal struck with Heads of Government behind Barnier's back and probably over a lot of mindless shouting and abuse from him and Junker because they have been sidelined or no deal and the hardest of hard Brexits. The latter possibility was what ultimately decided my vote for Remain despite my very serious misgivings about the EU, and recent events I would suggest give it about a 60% chance of happening.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
Au contraire, I suggest that our friends and neighbours would be relieved that we’d seen sense, and would be able to participate in the safe, prosperous ‘this part of the world’ we all want.
Hm, I think we would be viewed more as the unreliable partner who just wants to sit in the corner and moan all the time. Not that it is an unfair assessment.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Depends if Article 50 can be revoked. We will have invoked it at that point.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
Au contraire, I suggest that our friends and neighbours would be relieved that we’d seen sense, and would be able to participate in the safe, prosperous ‘this part of the world’ we all want.
Hm, I think we would be viewed more as the unreliable partner who just wants to sit in the corner and moan all the time. Not that it is an unfair assessment.
"Russia's foreign ministry has announced plans to expel 35 US diplomats in a tit-for-tat response after the same number of Russian officials were expelled by Washington, news agencies have reported. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly said the US action would not go unanswered.
Moscow had warned that measures taken by President Barack Obama could "destroy" relations between the two countries."
A 35-year-old man who was serving a 12 month sentence for a bacon attack on a mosque in Bristol has died in custody.
The Ministry of Justice has released the following statement.
HMP Bristol prisoner Kevin Crehan died in custody on Tuesday 27 December. As with all deaths in custody, the independent Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will investigate.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Once we have actived Article 50, potentially in about 12 weeks we are out in some shape or form, except in the very unlikely circumstance that the ECJ decides that Article 50 is reversible. In fact if Article 50 *is* reversible that is even worse, then the EU has every incentive to offer us the worst deal possible in the hope that we decide to reverse it - they have no incentive with a reversible A50 to make us an sort of mutually acceptable deal.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Once we have actived Article 50, potentially in about 12 weeks we are out in some shape or form, except in the very unlikely circumstance that the ECJ decides that Article 50 is reversible. In fact if Article 50 *is* reversible that is even worse, then the EU has every incentive to offer us the worst deal possible in the hope that we decide to reverse it - they have no incentive with a reversible A50 to make us an sort of mutually acceptable deal.
I would have thought that opposite was the case; best deal possible to encourage us to stay.
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
There you go again. If you're promoting a bad cause, don't blame your opponents for beating you.
You mistake me for an EU enthusiast, as opposed to someone appalled by the manner in which the Leave campaign was conducted. It was an indelible stain on our society.
We campaign vigourously You promise a pack of lies They leave an indelible stain on our society
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Once we have actived Article 50, potentially in about 12 weeks we are out in some shape or form, except in the very unlikely circumstance that the ECJ decides that Article 50 is reversible. In fact if Article 50 *is* reversible that is even worse, then the EU has every incentive to offer us the worst deal possible in the hope that we decide to reverse it - they have no incentive with a reversible A50 to make us an sort of mutually acceptable deal.
I would have thought that opposite was the case; best deal possible to encourage us to stay.
Why would we stay if they gave us an excellent deal to leave? I don't think our negotiators will be going there seeking a deal to remain in the EU.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Once we have actived Article 50, potentially in about 12 weeks we are out in some shape or form, except in the very unlikely circumstance that the ECJ decides that Article 50 is reversible. In fact if Article 50 *is* reversible that is even worse, then the EU has every incentive to offer us the worst deal possible in the hope that we decide to reverse it - they have no incentive with a reversible A50 to make us an sort of mutually acceptable deal.
I would have thought that opposite was the case; best deal possible to encourage us to stay.
Rock hard BrExit with no concessions and as much badwill and obstruction as they can dream up, or revoke Article 50 and stay (oh and if you wouldnt mind very much we would like to see you in Schengen and making strong moves toward joining the Euro)
Have to admit it looks like Labour are determined to make the Tories the best of the losers and vie with Lib Dems for 4th spot. Means SNP government forever though, which is as bad as Tory forever at Westminster.
She's making contingency plans for 'no deal'. If one of them isn't 'no Brexit' then I'm David Miliband's banana.
Once A50 has been invoked, 'no Brexit' ceases to be even a theoretical option, unless A50 is revocable, which both sides in the court case accepted that it wasn't (and looking at the text, it's pretty hard to argue any other way).
In any case, if TM tried to advocate a No Brexit outcome, the Chairman of the 1922's postman would need to book a larger delivery van.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Once we have actived Article 50, potentially in about 12 weeks we are out in some shape or form, except in the very unlikely circumstance that the ECJ decides that Article 50 is reversible. In fact if Article 50 *is* reversible that is even worse, then the EU has every incentive to offer us the worst deal possible in the hope that we decide to reverse it - they have no incentive with a reversible A50 to make us an sort of mutually acceptable deal.
I would have thought that opposite was the case; best deal possible to encourage us to stay.
Why would we stay if they gave us an excellent deal to leave? I don't think our negotiators will be going there seeking a deal to remain in the EU.
Ah; lost in translation. I see.
Trouble is that from where I sit I can’t see Leaving being good for the UK at all. I think we’ll be encouraged to stay, not penalised if we do.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Once we have actived Article 50, potentially in about 12 weeks we are out in some shape or form, except in the very unlikely circumstance that the ECJ decides that Article 50 is reversible. In fact if Article 50 *is* reversible that is even worse, then the EU has every incentive to offer us the worst deal possible in the hope that we decide to reverse it - they have no incentive with a reversible A50 to make us an sort of mutually acceptable deal.
I would have thought that opposite was the case; best deal possible to encourage us to stay.
Rock hard BrExit with no concessions and as much badwill and obstruction as they can dream up, or revoke Article 50 and stay (oh and if you wouldnt mind very much we would like to see you in Schengen and making strong moves toward joining the Euro)
David Cameron's deal takes effect the day the UK says it's decided to stay.
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
My wife's permanent residence application is currently on hold because she doesn't know more precisely than "March or April 2005" the date on which she first arrived in the UK. We're hoping our trip to her parents next week will uncover some records that can give a firm date.
Trips abroad are easier due to my habit of never deleting emails (thank you, Gmail). And we had to do most of the work earlier this year for my Russian visa.
I would have thought that opposite was the case; best deal possible to encourage us to stay.
Rock hard BrExit with no concessions and as much badwill and obstruction as they can dream up, or revoke Article 50 and stay (oh and if you wouldnt mind very much we would like to see you in Schengen and making strong moves toward joining the Euro)
That wouldn't work for the EU. We could revoke A50, then just invoke it again and extend our negotiating time.
"Russia's foreign ministry has announced plans to expel 35 US diplomats in a tit-for-tat response after the same number of Russian officials were expelled by Washington, news agencies have reported. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly said the US action would not go unanswered.
Moscow had warned that measures taken by President Barack Obama could "destroy" relations between the two countries."
Pity Putin wimped out and only did 35, he should have given Obama two fingers and went for 70. Obama miffed that Putin brought peace to Syria , what a loser.
Comments
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
As I said, I'm underwhelmed by May and suspect she'll prove something of a failure, but this is not a valid area to criticise her. Guaranteeing rights for foreigners without getting the same for Britons is not acceptable.
If they'd namechecked defence instead, it wouldn’t have the same appeal.
And, of course, if we continue to make payments in one form or another, the £350 million will be lower in the first place.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
You would have had a 30% profit margin then.
1. Wild Enthusiaism
2. Dissillusionment
3 Panic
4 Search for the guilty
5 Punishment of the innocent
6 Praise and honours for the non-participants
.. and we are only in the honeymoon period as nothing has happened yet and they are already as grumpy as hell!
Looking at the macro picture, we were promised an 'immediate technical recession'.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
If you actually read the guff , he mixes his metaphors to put it mildly , ie SNP and iphone come out at same time and prosper but he compares to Nokia , ie labour who floundered. The man and the idiot of an editor who printed it are obviously not too bright. Though given they are writing for Tories and out of touch tax exiles like you it is irrelevant , any old lie or rubbish will do.
When Brown called that voter asking where all the East Europeans were coming from a sort of "bigoted woman" do you think that that sort of baiting was forgotten?
Both campaigns told lies, both insulted voters, both used immigration and immigrants in distasteful ways (it is distasteful and morally reprehensible, IMO, not to discuss concerns which voters have about immigration, though I share your distaste at the approach which Farage took which went well beyond what I would consider acceptable, sensible or even particularly moral), both made promises which cannot possibly be kept and both were dishonest about what the EU is about, will be about and what the alternatives may be. There is no moral high ground here. Most voters had to make the best decision they could amongst a fog of misinformation and deceit. Had politicians attempted to have a sensible discussion about immigration years before the referendum there would not have been a vacuum for Farage and his ilk to fill. It is a bit much for those politicians now decrying his xenophobia not to realize and take responsibility for the part they played in allowing this to happen.
"Instead, we are far more likely to see rising consumer spending, rising debt levels, a flood of imports, a gradual build-up of inflation, and, in time, lots more wild lending from the banks as they grow more confident in rising prosperity. This boom may well end up with a crash in 2018 or 2019."
Hard, soft, boom, bust - or perhaps we'll be lucky and get a Goldilocks Brexit, eh?
Leave voters, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly thought things would be better if we left the EU across most areas - top ranked are immigration and ability to control our own laws, with the NHS, Border controls, Quality of Life and Welfare system fairness not far behind.
Net better if we left the EU - Leave Voters:
Border Controls: +96
Economic Security: +82
Job Prospects: +82
NHS: +95
Welfare System Fairness: +92
Protection vs terrorism: +82
Immigration System: +98
Cost of Living: +69
Control Own Laws: +98
Economy +80
UK Influence: +72
Rights in UK: +90
Investment in UK: +50
Quality of life: +96
Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off.
An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
That was the ridiculous thing about the whole campaign. Leave couldn't promise anything as they were not and are not in government.
The responsible thing to do would be for the PM to say what he would do in either scenario rather than ramp up concerns then quit.
The referendum losers are now harping on about 350m, but who are they talking to?
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-12-29/posen-theresa-may-should-reconsider-brexit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4074948/Soft-Brexit-damage-health-warn-doctors-Regulator-says-NHS-left-powerless-perform-checks-European-medics-UK-stays-single-market.html
George Osborne's cooked-up 'estimates' of how much more a week's shopping would cost, how much the cost of a holiday would rise, and of course, the crowning turd that was the £4,300/household, really were completely fictitious.
That's the point
And in your eyes your bigotry is justified but 'their bigotry' isn't.
Take it from them and give it to me.
Take it from them and give it to me.
Take it from them and give it to me.
Who are these "leavers" that some people keep referring to? Do they mean the voters? Or perhaps it is HMG? Or perhaps people on this site who decided that, on balance, the UK would have a better future out of the EU? Just who are these people who will suffer at the ballot box if or who need to be open or all the rest of the stuff that has been mentioned this morning?
One of the charms of PB for me when I checked a thread you never knew what the debate that day might be about and often not even political.
Remind us how many times the "no ifs, no buts" immigration target was met.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJRtDPOjQ7g
or how the "paying down Britain's debts" is going:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/
One of the key stupidities of Lisbon/the Constitution/Valery Giscard's ego trip (delete according to taste) is the short time frame and extreme complexity of the divorce process. This is partly because Giscard, being a fanatic, never thought anyone would want to leave the EU and also wanted to make it near-impossible to do so.
Junker, a man cast in a similar mould (and with a very obvious alcohol problem which is impairing his judgement further) has muddied the waters further by appointing Barnier, who has made it clear that he does not actually intend to negotiate or at least, will draw out the process past all reason.
So the options once A50 is triggered are either a fairly basic deal struck with Heads of Government behind Barnier's back and probably over a lot of mindless shouting and abuse from him and Junker because they have been sidelined or no deal and the hardest of hard Brexits. The latter possibility was what ultimately decided my vote for Remain despite my very serious misgivings about the EU, and recent events I would suggest give it about a 60% chance of happening.
"Russia's foreign ministry has announced plans to expel 35 US diplomats in a tit-for-tat response after the same number of Russian officials were expelled by Washington, news agencies have reported. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly said the US action would not go unanswered.
Moscow had warned that measures taken by President Barack Obama could "destroy" relations between the two countries."
http://news.sky.com/story/russia-to-expel-diplomats-in-tit-for-tat-retaliation-against-us-10711358
http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2016-12-29/man-convicted-of-bacon-attack-on-mosque-dies-in-jail/
A 35-year-old man who was serving a 12 month sentence for a bacon attack on a mosque in Bristol has died in custody.
The Ministry of Justice has released the following statement.
HMP Bristol prisoner Kevin Crehan died in custody on Tuesday 27 December. As with all deaths in custody, the independent Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will investigate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB-NnVpvQ78
You promise a pack of lies
They leave an indelible stain on our society
(FN will lose this time due to an establishment stitch-up, can you think of a better outcome for an insurgent anti-establishment party ?)
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
In any case, if TM tried to advocate a No Brexit outcome, the Chairman of the 1922's postman would need to book a larger delivery van.
Trouble is that from where I sit I can’t see Leaving being good for the UK at all. I think we’ll be encouraged to stay, not penalised if we do.
Trips abroad are easier due to my habit of never deleting emails (thank you, Gmail). And we had to do most of the work earlier this year for my Russian visa.
That wouldn't work for the EU. We could revoke A50, then just invoke it again and extend our negotiating time.