I disagree slightly that my MP John Mann is after a hard Brexit, he voted for the deal much to the chagrin of the comments section of the Worksop Guardian (They think his line is too soft in general !) ...
I suspect Lammy's thinking, if he is capable of that, is to try to frighten labour leave mps to come to his position
David Lammy is a curious figure. On those occasions I've seen him one on one away from politics he is a hugely impressive figure. Intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable and mild mannered. But for some reason anything he touches in politics goes disastrously wrong. I well remember when he was introducing some bill or other on universities on behalf of Mandelson, and it was an utter train wreck. He got the most fearful monstering from MPs on both sides and he looked like a rabbit in the headlights. He doesn't seem to have improved since then.
I don't know why that is. Maybe he just hasn't got great judgement.
The Ethiopian calendar has 13 months. I do wonder whether Mr Meeks just looks up an obscure word, then sets himself a task to fit it into a thread header.
I use obscure words or specific phrases as a means to find threads later speedily by googling.
There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
You should be more surprised that 191 MPs know what the government's position is. The Telegraph divides the Cabinet alone into six groups depending which Plan B each minister supports. And unlike Labour's, the government's position actually matters.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows
Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
Except that is not correct as faced with No Deal both Flint and Nandy would likely vote for EUref2 as would maybe 50 Tory MPs or more ensuring it had a majority. The only Labour MPs committed to No Deal if necessary are really Hoey, Mann, Skinner and Flint
So May's crap deal is the most popular policy position in the commons. May be maybe not so crap after all..
Being, technically, the most popular first preference option does it not good unless it is also the least unpopular, if that makes sense. If Labour's policy becomes a second vote then that easily becomes the most popular.
And of course other calculations, such as John Rentoul's, puts Remain at the top with 300 or so.
I disagree slightly that my MP John Mann is after a hard Brexit, he voted for the deal much to the chagrin of the comments section of the Worksop Guardian (They think his line is too soft in general !) ...
Well, these lists will always have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
You touch on the key question. What will the two main parties’ loyalist MPs do when it comes to the crunch? We have no clear picture.
Which is where that map you have so helpfully provided - thank you - is most interesting. Unless my eyes deceive me, the majority of Labour MPs in London - which is Corbyn's powerbase - back a second vote. Labour's position (insofar as they have one!) appears to be much more popular with their MPs in the north.
Maybe that will become significant in deciding which way the Jezaster ultimately jumps.
Not that yet another referendum, even if we had time for it, would likely solve anything.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
But when will the breakthrough be? An extension is needed once agreement is reached, so when does it become the plan? I severely doubt May will announce that tomorrow, someone would have leaked that talks with other parties on that topic had been successful if that was the case, so we're going to get a repeat of her speech when pulling the MV.
Having lost hrr Deal vote what May says now is largely irrelevant, it is Bercow, Boles, Grieve and Cooper who will be setting the direction of the Commons over the next few weeks and what Parliament votes for I expect May will ultimately accept
There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
You should be more surprised that 191 MPs know what the government's position is. The Telegraph divides the Cabinet alone into six groups depending which Plan B each minister supports. And unlike Labour's, the government's position actually matters.
Labour's position matters, they're the ones with the numbers to swing it. And the image might say Con policy, which is unclear, but the other graphic defines that as May's deal so I guess is not covering what they might do for plan B really.
I suspect Lammy's thinking, if he is capable of that, is to try to frighten labour leave mps to come to his position
David Lammy is a curious figure. On those occasions I've seen him one on one away from politics he is a hugely impressive figure. Intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable and mild mannered. But for some reason anything he touches in politics goes disastrously wrong. I well remember when he was introducing some bill or other on universities on behalf of Mandelson, and it was an utter train wreck. He got the most fearful monstering from MPs on both sides and he looked like a rabbit in the headlights. He doesn't seem to have improved since then.
I don't know why that is. Maybe he just hasn't got great judgement.
He was highly effective in Parliament on the matter of Windrush.
So May's crap deal is the most popular policy position in the commons. May be maybe not so crap after all..
The worrying thing about that map is that we have a roughly four way split. Even if we added Labour Position and Second Referendum together we're still short of 300. Which does rather indicate a run in until crashout is mathematically likely.
There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
You should be more surprised that 191 MPs know what the government's position is. The Telegraph divides the Cabinet alone into six groups depending which Plan B each minister supports. And unlike Labour's, the government's position actually matters.
The government position is simple. Sign the Barnier agreement.
What to do next is perhaps somewhat less clear, albeit clearer than the critics allow, but the key thing is to be out without major disruption.
I disagree slightly that my MP John Mann is after a hard Brexit, he voted for the deal much to the chagrin of the comments section of the Worksop Guardian (They think his line is too soft in general !) ...
So May's crap deal is the most popular policy position in the commons. May be maybe not so crap after all..
The worrying thing about that map is that we have a roughly four way split. Even if we added Labour Position and Second Referendum together we're still short of 300. Which does rather indicate a run in until crashout is mathematically likely.
No, as almost certainly significant number of Tory Deal supporters would switch to a Remain v Deal referendum if the only alternative was No Deal. Given 191 MPs back May's Deal and only 116 MPs back hard Brexit there is a comfortable majority once you add some Deal backers to supporters of Labour's Position and a Second Referendum
So May's crap deal is the most popular policy position in the commons. May be maybe not so crap after all..
The worrying thing about that map is that we have a roughly four way split. Even if we added Labour Position and Second Referendum together we're still short of 300. Which does rather indicate a run in until crashout is mathematically likely.
Which is why Revocation (or a long extension) becomes more likely. The question is whether Grieve and Co can get it adopted. If so, it may become the de facto backstop. As a backstop it solves the two NI border problems but of course, we'd not have left.
May's deal resolves the problem for now. If the infinity of clever people all basically saying there are no good choices are correct - and they are, then something which enables can kicking for up to several years, technically discharges the Referendum mandate and allows the chance of every possible Brexit while also legitimising a renewed campaign to rejoin (we would have left after all!) looks very like the best option. I think we shall have to come back to something very like it.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
It is the withdrawal agreement which has been rejected by parliament. The future trading arrangement was left open. So Canada Plus Plus (or Norway) is irrelevant.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
It is the withdrawal agreement which has been rejected by parliament. The future trading arrangement was left open. So Canada Plus Plus is irrelevant.
The WA traps us in a backstop unless we accept the trading terms dictated by the EU if we cannot legally exit the backstop without EU consent. No one with a brain would sign up to that.
May's deal resolves the problem for now. If the infinity of clever people all basically saying there are no good choices are correct - and they are, then something which enables can kicking for up to several years, technically discharges the Referendum mandate and allows the chance of every possible Brexit while also legitimising a renewed campaign to rejoin (we would have left after all!) looks very like the best option. I think we shall have to come back to something very like it.
What has the best option to do with the price of fish? What matters is which of the options has a plausible path to success. Trying to find the best option, as many posters are doing, may not be helpful in deciding which way to bet.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
You should be more surprised that 191 MPs know what the government's position is. The Telegraph divides the Cabinet alone into six groups depending which Plan B each minister supports. And unlike Labour's, the government's position actually matters.
The government position is simple. Sign the Barnier agreement.
What to do next is perhaps somewhat less clear, albeit clearer than the critics allow, but the key thing is to be out without major disruption.
May's position (but not the governments) is to keep putting forward an unacceptable deal until we leave on WTO terms.
TL:DR - it’s all too darned hard, so let’s just stay after all.
The EU’s greatest weapon is inevitability.
The EU's greatest weapon is the Stockholm Syndrome-suffering Remainers, who cannot conceive of life outside the EU.....
That’s a little rude. I think they merely disagree about what’s best. I do wonder where we would be if the Conservative Brexiteers implementing Brexit has been a touch more competent politically and in government.
So May's crap deal is the most popular policy position in the commons. May be maybe not so crap after all..
The worrying thing about that map is that we have a roughly four way split. Even if we added Labour Position and Second Referendum together we're still short of 300. Which does rather indicate a run in until crashout is mathematically likely.
No, as almost certainly significant number of Tory Deal supporters would switch to a Remain v Deal referendum if the only alternative was No Deal. Given 191 MPs back May's Deal and only 116 MPs back hard Brexit there is a comfortable majority once you add some Deal backers to supporters of Labour's Position and a Second Referendum
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
The referendum was an advisory one, it does not have to be implemented. The power resides with parliament which has the ultimate mandate with millions more having voted for it than Leave.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources, not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
You should be more surprised that 191 MPs know what the government's position is. The Telegraph divides the Cabinet alone into six groups depending which Plan B each minister supports. And unlike Labour's, the government's position actually matters.
The government position is simple. Sign the Barnier agreement.
What to do next is perhaps somewhat less clear, albeit clearer than the critics allow, but the key thing is to be out without major disruption.
May's position (but not the governments) is to keep putting forward an unacceptable deal until we leave on WTO terms.
May is the master tactician.
May is the anti-Osborne. As the Chancellor's Plan A ran into economic reality, he modified the government's economic policy (more than once) but kept calling it Plan A. Whereas for Theresa May, the name is variable but the deal is set in concrete.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
You know, I cannot imagine how you think withdrawing the whip from the remainers and seeking a leadership election is in any way remotely likely to happen. Remove the whip, they cross the floor, and hey presto another election which solves nothing at all
TL:DR - it’s all too darned hard, so let’s just stay after all.
The EU’s greatest weapon is inevitability.
The EU's greatest weapon is the Stockholm Syndrome-suffering Remainers, who cannot conceive of life outside the EU.....
Nah, we can conceive post Brexit Britain just fine, but are not very keen on chucking the baby out with the bathwater. Brexiteers say we can always have another baby, by negotiation afterwards, but I am not convinced.
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
The referendum was an advisory one, it does not have to be implemented. The power resides with parliament which has the ultimate mandate with millions more having voted for it than Leave.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
Indeed the referendum was advisory but May took the leadership and both major parties ran their 2017 GE elections on the basis of honouring the result.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
TL:DR - it’s all too darned hard, so let’s just stay after all.
The EU’s greatest weapon is inevitability.
The EU's greatest weapon is the Stockholm Syndrome-suffering Remainers, who cannot conceive of life outside the EU.....
That’s a little rude. I think they merely disagree about what’s best. I do wonder where we would be if the Conservative Brexiteers implementing Brexit has been a touch more competent politically and in government.
Only a 'touch' - you are being very generous to them !!!!
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
I suspect the vast majority of the 498 mps voting for A50 had no idea no deal became default
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
If he's as smart as he thinks, yes he did and he was lying about being willing to follow through with it. I really don't know why he did, other MPs did not, including Clarke. Quite possibly, given his modus operandi, despite his undoubted intellect he was not thinking about the consequences.
So May's crap deal is the most popular policy position in the commons. May be maybe not so crap after all..
Isn't that basically the Government 'payroll' vote i.e. must support it or resign from the Government?
And plenty of people did resign, including some from the Cabinet. Given that, any who remain can reasonably be taken as supporting the policy by choice, since they did not even have to be brave and take the first plunge to resign if they could not back it.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
I suspect the vast majority of the 498 mps voting for A50 had no idea no deal became default
I can't believe that. There are fools in the Commons but most are not fools, and it is not a hard concept to grasp.
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
I suspect the vast majority of the 498 mps voting for A50 had no idea no deal became default
I can't believe that. There are fools in the Commons but most are not fools, and it is not a hard concept to grasp.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
One at least knows what he wants and is capable of working in an achievable plan to get it.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
One at least knows what he wants and is capable of working in an achievable plan to get it.
Boris might still become PM unfortunately, so may well get what he wants.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The referendum was an advisory one, it does not have to be implemented. The power resides with parliament which has the ultimate mandate with millions more having voted for it than Leave.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
Indeed the referendum was advisory but May took the leadership and both major parties ran their 2017 GE elections on the basis of honouring the result.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
The facts have changed since the referendum, why on earth should we as a country go through with something that will detrimentally impact the economy and peoples lives, diminish our international standing and inhibit the ability of the UK to grow as fast as our competitors?
The EU will exist in the future whether we are in it or exit it. The goals of people like you are unobtainable they are in the past. It is better to have some collective arrangement and input than to be impotent and in eternal opposition to something that will affect our lives anyway.
You say being in the EU was a nightmare, please can you tell me why it was a nightmare? If you mention Immigration, you do realise that will happen whether we are in the EU or not, instead of Europeans they will be Asian or African in origin. Maybe you will mention Banana or vegetable standards? The point being the whole premise of Brexit is undermined by reality.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
The referendum was an advisory one, it does not have to be implemented. The power resides with parliament which has the ultimate mandate with millions more having voted for it than Leave.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
Indeed the referendum was advisory but May took the leadership and both major parties ran their 2017 GE elections on the basis of honouring the result.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
Yes, the two main Parties did not have to treat the result as binding, but they chose to do so. That was irresponsible, but at least that gives them an excuse for being equally irresponsible in passing the buck a second time by calling a second referendum.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Boris most certainly is and with the greatest of respect you and I will not agree on brexit.
My brexit is TM deal including if amended, or remain
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The referendum was an advisory one, it does not have to be implemented. The power resides with parliament which has the ultimate mandate with millions more having voted for it than Leave.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
Indeed the referendum was advisory but May took the leadership and both major parties ran their 2017 GE elections on the basis of honouring the result.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
The point being the whole premise of Brexit is undermined by reality.
If Mps want to make that point they will need to be a lot braver than they are at the moment, hiding behind wanting unicorn deals and delays when what they want is to remain. They have the power to do it, they believe the public want that now, as do you, they need to stop being so cowardly then.
And if it is a matter of reality there is no need to confirm their action in a referendum.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
One at least knows what he wants and is capable of working in an achievable plan to get it.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
Indeed the referendum was advisory but May took the leadership and both major parties ran their 2017 GE elections on the basis of honouring the result.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
The facts have changed since the referendum, why on earth should we as a country go through with something that will detrimentally harm the economy, diminish our international standing and inhibit the ability of the UK to grow as fast as our competitors?
The EU will exist in the future whether we are in it or exit it. The goals of people like you are unobtainable they are in the past. It is better to have some collective arrangement and input than to be impotent and in eternal opposition to something that will affect our lives anyway.
You say being in the EU was a nightmare, please can you tell me why it was a nightmare? If you mention Immigration, you do realise that will happen whether we are in the EU or not, instead of Europeans they will be Asian or African in origin. Maybe you will mention Banana or vegetable standards? The point being the whole premise of Brexit is undermined by reality.
The facts haven’t changed at all. Osborne’s two puerile Treasury reports during the referendum campaign are no different from the prognostications of economic doom now wing peddled by diehard Remainers anxious to do the EU’s bidding.
Our international standing has been damaged but only by May crawling to EU diktat in trying to construct a special relationship with the EU that the EU clearly don’t want. That can be changed if we leave but not if we crawl back like a whipped cur.
It’s a nightmare if you value your sovereignty and don’t want to see it given away to the burghers of Brussels as the match to a USE proceeds. I have a son in law born and brought up in Delhi. My interest in immigration is to end the immigration apartheid forced upon us by freedom of movement.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
I suspect the vast majority of the 498 mps voting for A50 had no idea no deal became default
Donald Tusk said publicly that it was revocable several months before MPs voted.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Boris most certainly is and with the greatest of respect you and I will not agree on brexit.
My brexit is TM deal including if amended, or remain
Boris is trying to undermine May not the Gov.
Your Brexit is not mine - but then, unlike you, I voted Leave.
What I see happening in parliament at the moment feels like watching my youngest daughter procrastinate before her prelim exams. Bursts of activity that are not necessarily useful, followed by periods of quiet when I am assured all is in hand.
No more ridiculous than why the first day of the tax year is April 6.
When the government changed from the Julian to the Georgian calendar the Treasury decided it would be too much like hard work to have a stub year
On the Julian system the first day of the New Year was Lady Day. They added 11 to that to come up with April 5. Then 1800 (apparently!) this was updated because there was a leap year in the Julian system... hence April 6.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
The referendum was an advisory one, it does not have to be implemented. The power resides with parliament which has the ultimate mandate with millions more having voted for it than Leave.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
Indeed the referendum was advisory but May took the leadership and both major parties ran their 2017 GE elections on the basis of honouring the result.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
Yes, the two main Parties did not have to treat the result as binding, but they chose to do so. That was irresponsible, but at least that gives them an excuse for being equally irresponsible in passing the buck a second time by calling a second referendum.
Having a second referendum before implementing the first is a dereliction of duty. Might as well have a GE rather than a second referendum.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The referendum was an advisory one, it does not have to be implemented. The power resides with parliament which has the ultimate mandate with millions more having voted for it than Leave.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
.
The point being the whole premise of Brexit is undermined by reality.
If Mps want to make that point they will need to be a lot braver than they are at the moment, hiding behind wanting unicorn deals and delays when what they want is to remain. They have the power to do it, they believe the public want that now, as do you, they need to stop being so cowardly then.
I agree on the need for them to bite the bullet.
The simple fact is the best deal is the status quo. It can be argued that Parliament has respected the result of 2016 by negotiating a WA but the deal is simply not good enough to embark on executing Leave.
Given the referendum was three years ago, we have witnessed the rise of Trump, the inability of the UK to extract better future terms outside than the EU, the revelation of Russian interference and the break in electoral law by Leave. I cannot understand why politicians are running so scared of telling the UK the truth.
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
I suspect the vast majority of the 498 mps voting for A50 had no idea no deal became default
Donald Tusk said publicly that it was revocable several months before MPs voted.
That is very different from the default position. Deal or decision to revoke or extend are all possible but if no one does something to agree one of those positions out we go. It amazes me how the support for no deal is rising and should be a sober warning to mps to get their act together
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Boris most certainly is and with the greatest of respect you and I will not agree on brexit.
My brexit is TM deal including if amended, or remain
Boris is trying to undermine May not the Gov.
Your Brexit is not mine - but then, unlike you, I voted Leave.
Undermine your Prime Minister, you undermine your government
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
I suspect the vast majority of the 498 mps voting for A50 had no idea no deal became default
Donald Tusk said publicly that it was revocable several months before MPs voted.
That is very different from the default position. Deal or decision to revoke or extend are all possible but if no one does something to agree one of those positions out we go. It amazes me how the support for no deal is rising and should be a sober warning to mps to get their act together
It’s not rising. Polls always showed high support for it, especially post-Chequers when it became clear what a realistic Brexit deal would look like.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
He is certainly running rings around May - with the collusion of Bercow, whom I assume you also admire. The ERG aren’t great but then they are not trying to subvert the Gov and parliamentary procedure, unlike Grieve.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Boris most certainly is and with the greatest of respect you and I will not agree on brexit.
My brexit is TM deal including if amended, or remain
Boris is trying to undermine May not the Gov.
Your Brexit is not mine - but then, unlike you, I voted Leave.
Undermine your Prime Minister, you undermine your government
So Ken Clarke refusing to support Mrs T over the community charge was trying to subvert the Gov of which he was a member was it.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Boris most certainly is and with the greatest of respect you and I will not agree on brexit.
My brexit is TM deal including if amended, or remain
Boris is trying to undermine May not the Gov.
Your Brexit is not mine - but then, unlike you, I voted Leave.
Undermine your Prime Minister, you undermine your government
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
That’s your opinion not mine. I have no respect whatsoever for Boris Johnson but that would apply to quite a few of the current parliamentary party including my own MP. Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
He is certainly running rings around May - with the collusion of Bercow, whom I assume you also admire. The ERG aren’t great but them then they are not trying to subvert the Gov and parliamentary procedure, unlike Grieve.
Assumptions are not wise. Bercow is obnoxious, self important and too political for his position and he should have resigned over the ongoing bullying scandal. He just adds to distrust and should go now
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
He is certainly running rings around May - with the collusion of Bercow, whom I assume you also admire. The ERG aren’t great but them then they are not trying to subvert the Gov and parliamentary procedure, unlike Grieve.
Assumptions are not wise. Bercow is obnoxious, self important and too political for his position and he should have resigned over the ongoing bullying scandal. He just adds to distrust and should go now
He is Grieve’s partner in crime in trying to subvert the Gov. Admiring Grieve but not the man who makes his Machiavellian machinations possible is illogical.
Anyway after that slightly manic burst I am rejoining the surprisingly snowless A9 and going on to Inverness. Laters.
Ha, snap. Beautiful drive...
Is the A96 a dangerous road, a relative(ish) was killed on that road recently .
The A9 has been lethal for the time I have travelled on it (1955 - 2018) but the recent introduction of average speed cameras has been very effective and now is much safer and is a beautiful road to travel
The A96 Aberdeen to Inverness road though Elgin continues to be quite dangerous and I have travelled it for as long
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
Indeed the referendum was advisory but May took the leadership and both major parties ran their 2017 GE elections on the basis of honouring the result.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
It’s a nightmare if you value your sovereignty and don’t want to see it given away to the burghers of Brussels as the match to a USE proceeds. I have a son in law born and brought up in Delhi. My interest in immigration is to end the immigration apartheid forced upon us by freedom of movement.
On sovereignty, countless democratically elected Governments have deemed it to be in the economic interests of this country to simplify rules to a common standard that enable competition to produce across the single market. The UK has won under these rules, especially in the service industry sector which makes up 80% of the economy.
On immigration the fact is UK citizens can move around the EU as much as other nationals can live here. If they are making a contribution to our economy, which studies have shown they are making Net of all benefits, services and health care what is the problem? The UK has entered into an agreement with other EU countries to respect other nationals like its own. If the UK wanted to allow individuals from Delhi to come and live here on the same terms as EU nationals, there is nothing to stop the UK doing this within the EU.
The UK will have diminished influence in the Global community due to Brexit as we will no longer have the solidarity of the other 27 nations guaranteed to add weight in influencing our agenda in the world. In terms of the military, Brexit will likely see a further diminishment of resources. How long do you think we will have the two aircraft carriers if Brexit is implemented? I suspect they will be axed which will be a further diminution of the UK's hard power.
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Given the referendum was three years ago, we have witnessed the rise of Trump, the inability of the UK to extract better future terms outside than the EU, the revelation of Russian interference and the break in electoral law by Leave. I cannot understand why politicians are running so scared of telling the UK the truth.
Assuming you mean 'the breaches of electoral law by Leave,' can I again remind you that Remain was also found guilty:
And as for foreign interference, both Juncker and Obama campaigned for Remain, in the latter case I am sure with the best of intentions.
Finally, Remain assured us we were a sovereign state and able to decide our own future, and therefore there was no reason to leave. Are you now saying they were not telling the truth and we are too enmeshed in the EU to leave it?
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greeningr.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
He is certainly running rings around May - with the collusion of Bercow, whom I assume you also admire. The ERG aren’t great but them then they are not trying to subvert the Gov and parliamentary procedure, unlike Grieve.
Assumptions are not wise. Bercow is obnoxious, self important and too political for his position and he should have resigned over the ongoing bullying scandal. He just adds to distrust and should go now
He is Grieve’s partner in crime in trying to subvert the Gov. Admiring Grieve but not the man who makes his Machiavellian machinations possible is illogical.
Where did I say I admire Grieve.
I think he is as bad as Johnson as I said earlier but the difference is Grieve has the political and technical knowledge to fight his cause which is lacking in Boris and the ERG
Given the referendum was three years ago, we have witnessed the rise of Trump, the inability of the UK to extract better future terms outside than the EU, the revelation of Russian interference and the break in electoral law by Leave. I cannot understand why politicians are running so scared of telling the UK the truth.
Assuming you mean 'the breaches of electoral law by Leave,' can I again remind you that Remain was also found guilty:
And as for foreign interference, both Juncker and Obama campaigned for Remain, in the latter case I am sure with the best of intentions.
Finally, Remain assured us we were a sovereign state and able to decide our own future, and therefore there was no reason to leave. Are you now saying they were not telling the truth and we are too enmeshed in the EU to leave it?
Of course we aren't to enmeshed to leave. If the Leavers had been able to agree with each other we would be leaving now.
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Article 50 always had three possible conclusions:
Deal No deal Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greeningr.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
He is certainly running rings around May - with the collusion of Bercow, whom I assume you also admire. The ERG aren’t great but them then they are not trying to subvert the Gov and parliamentary procedure, unlike Grieve.
Assumptions are not wise. Bercow is obnoxious, self important and too political for his position and he should have resigned over the ongoing bullying scandal. He just adds to distrust and should go now
He is Grieve’s partner in crime in trying to subvert the Gov. Admiring Grieve but not the man who makes his Machiavellian machinations possible is illogical.
Where did I say I admire Grieve.
I think he is as bad as Johnson as I said earlier but the difference is Grieve has the political and technical knowledge to fight his cause which is lacking in Boris and the ERG
Bercow fails for me on many counts
Grieve has a predominantly Remain supporting parliament and the speaker on his side.
Neither Boris nor the ERG are trying to seize control of Parliament from the Gov, unlike Grieve.
Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
No BoZo seized the entire political agenda to subvert his own government and further his own career
Nonsense.
Of course he did. Boris only cares about Boris. If I lived in Uxbridge I would campaign to see him booted out. And I am a conservative member. And by the way my wife, who is also a member, would beat me to it
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Article 50 always had three possible conclusions:
Deal No deal Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
So you reckon dishonest. I think you're probably right.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greeningr.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
He is certainly running rings around May - with the collusion of Bercow, whom I assume you also admire. The ERG aren’t great but them then they are not trying to subvert the Gov and parliamentary procedure, unlike Grieve.
Assumptions are not wise. Bercow is obnoxious, self important and too political for his position and he should have resigned over the ongoing bullying scandal. He just adds to distrust and should go now
He is Grieve’s partner in crime in trying to subvert the Gov. Admiring Grieve but not the man who makes his Machiavellian machinations possible is illogical.
Where did I say I admire Grieve.
I think he is as bad as Johnson as I said earlier but the difference is Grieve has the political and technical knowledge to fight his cause which is lacking in Boris and the ERG
Bercow fails for me on many counts
Grieve has a predominantly Remain supporting parliament and the speaker on his side.
Neither Boris nor the ERG are trying to seize control of Parliament from the Gov, unlike Grieve.
They would if they could, they do not have the numbers
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
You may not like his principles, but Grieve at least has some.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
On immigration the fact is UK citizens can move around the EU as much as other nationals can live here. If they are making a contribution to our economy, which studies have shown they are making Net of all benefits, services and health care what is the problem? The UK has entered into an agreement with other EU countries to respect other nationals like its own. If the UK wanted to allow individuals from Delhi to come and live here on the same terms as EU nationals, there is nothing to stop the UK doing this within the EU.
The UK will have diminished influence in the Global community due to Brexit as we will no longer have the solidarity of the other 27 nations guaranteed to add weight in influencing our agenda in the world. In terms of the military, Brexit will likely see a further diminishment of resources. How long do you think we will have the two aircraft carriers if Brexit is implemented? I suspect they will be axed which will be a further diminution of the UK's hard power.
The referendum result shows that more are persuaded by my view of sovereignty than yours - CAP reform which didn’t happen when Blair gave up most of the rebate, Junkers appointment, Osborne’s failed attempts to prevent bonus capping, Cameron’s failed attempts at both EU budget reform and terms of membership being a few examples among many.
What you say about immigration is waffle and doesn’t address the issue of immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement. I lived as an expat in NZ. Filling in a few forms is not that onerous.
What you say about future influence is pure conjecture - Project Fear in a different guise. The only way to find out is to Leave. What you say about the military is risible. The UK and France are the only credible military powers in the EU.
Given the referendum was three years ago, we have witnessed the rise of Trump, the inability of the UK to extract better future terms outside than the EU, the revelation of Russian interference and the break in electoral law by Leave. I cannot understand why politicians are running so scared of telling the UK the truth.
Assuming you mean 'the breaches of electoral law by Leave,' can I again remind you that Remain was also found guilty:
And as for foreign interference, both Juncker and Obama campaigned for Remain, in the latter case I am sure with the best of intentions.
Finally, Remain assured us we were a sovereign state and able to decide our own future, and therefore there was no reason to leave. Are you now saying they were not telling the truth and we are too enmeshed in the EU to leave it?
We are perfectly capable of leaving. What is outside of our control is the cost of doing so.
Comments
I don't know why that is. Maybe he just hasn't got great judgement.
And of course other calculations, such as John Rentoul's, puts Remain at the top with 300 or so. Well, these lists will always have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Maybe that will become significant in deciding which way the Jezaster ultimately jumps.
Not that yet another referendum, even if we had time for it, would likely solve anything.
But I don't think we're showing pleasure.
What to do next is perhaps somewhat less clear, albeit clearer than the critics allow, but the key thing is to be out without major disruption.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
May is the master tactician.
The whole premise of Brexit being a better way to run the country and therefore the economy has been utterly destroyed, Brexit is a worse economic and societal option. No parliament has ever implemented a policy to diminish economic activity.
The usual option is to change the level of redistribution of resources, not limit the fundamental ability of future economic growth. Brexit is all about the past and rewinding the clock to a time we can never have again. Remaining in the EU is about giving the future an optimal chance and the people in our country the chance to live their ambition rather than just dream about what could have been.
I rather thought Brexit was about our future and a desire to leave the EU in the past.
Remaining is signing up to a United States of Europe and for 17.4m that wasn’t so much a dream but a nightmare.
They are both as bad as each other
The EU will exist in the future whether we are in it or exit it. The goals of people like you are unobtainable they are in the past. It is better to have some collective arrangement and input than to be impotent and in eternal opposition to something that will affect our lives anyway.
You say being in the EU was a nightmare, please can you tell me why it was a nightmare? If you mention Immigration, you do realise that will happen whether we are in the EU or not, instead of Europeans they will be Asian or African in origin. Maybe you will mention Banana or vegetable standards? The point being the whole premise of Brexit is undermined by reality.
My brexit is TM deal including if amended, or remain
And if it is a matter of reality there is no need to confirm their action in a referendum.
Our international standing has been damaged but only by May crawling to EU diktat in trying to construct a special relationship with the EU that the EU clearly don’t want. That can be changed if we leave but not if we crawl back like a whipped cur.
It’s a nightmare if you value your sovereignty and don’t want to see it given away to the burghers of Brussels as the match to a USE proceeds. I have a son in law born and brought up in Delhi. My interest in immigration is to end the immigration apartheid forced upon us by freedom of movement.
Your Brexit is not mine - but then, unlike you, I voted Leave.
When the government changed from the Julian to the Georgian calendar the Treasury decided it would be too much like hard work to have a stub year
On the Julian system the first day of the New Year was Lady Day. They added 11 to that to come up with April 5. Then 1800 (apparently!) this was updated because there was a leap year in the Julian system... hence April 6.
The simple fact is the best deal is the status quo. It can be argued that Parliament has respected the result of 2016 by negotiating a WA but the deal is simply not good enough to embark on executing Leave.
Given the referendum was three years ago, we have witnessed the rise of Trump, the inability of the UK to extract better future terms outside than the EU, the revelation of Russian interference and the break in electoral law by Leave. I cannot understand why politicians are running so scared of telling the UK the truth.
Thanks.
The A96 Aberdeen to Inverness road though Elgin continues to be quite dangerous and I have travelled it for as long
Or put the picture on a URL somewhere and post a link using the image embedder tool.
On immigration the fact is UK citizens can move around the EU as much as other nationals can live here. If they are making a contribution to our economy, which studies have shown they are making Net of all benefits, services and health care what is the problem? The UK has entered into an agreement with other EU countries to respect other nationals like its own. If the UK wanted to allow individuals from Delhi to come and live here on the same terms as EU nationals, there is nothing to stop the UK doing this within the EU.
The UK will have diminished influence in the Global community due to Brexit as we will no longer have the solidarity of the other 27 nations guaranteed to add weight in influencing our agenda in the world. In terms of the military, Brexit will likely see a further diminishment of resources. How long do you think we will have the two aircraft carriers if Brexit is implemented? I suspect they will be axed which will be a further diminution of the UK's hard power.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/95175/fresh-fines-remain-campaigners-after-referendum-expenses
And as for foreign interference, both Juncker and Obama campaigned for Remain, in the latter case I am sure with the best of intentions.
Finally, Remain assured us we were a sovereign state and able to decide our own future, and therefore there was no reason to leave. Are you now saying they were not telling the truth and we are too enmeshed in the EU to leave it?
I think he is as bad as Johnson as I said earlier but the difference is Grieve has the political and technical knowledge to fight his cause which is lacking in Boris and the ERG
Bercow fails for me on many counts
Deal
No deal
Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
Neither Boris nor the ERG are trying to seize control of Parliament from the Gov, unlike Grieve.
"the real sin Cameron committed was not the referendum... it was agreeing to the 2011 [FTPA]"
What you say about immigration is waffle and doesn’t address the issue of immigration apartheid required by freedom of movement. I lived as an expat in NZ. Filling in a few forms is not that onerous.
What you say about future influence is pure conjecture - Project Fear in a different guise. The only way to find out is to Leave. What you say about the military is risible. The UK and France are the only credible military powers in the EU.
Unfortunately I am not on Twitter and the rest is incomprehensible......
What is outside of our control is the cost of doing so.