Slackbladder said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

grabcocque said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Verulamius said:

The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.

Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.

It would depend on the linkage I expect between the two.

Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.

Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.

The ERG are piss and wind. What we've learned over the past fortnight is that they are nothing like as strong as they make out.

MikeSmithson said:

Slackbladder said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

grabcocque said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Verulamius said:

The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.

Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.

It would depend on the linkage I expect between the two.

Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.

Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.

The ERG are piss and wind. What we've learned over the past fortnight is that they are nothing like as strong as they make out.

Strong enough to help prevent a deal and secure remains ultimate victory. They must be proud.

I have only seen snippets of him (Cox) and he has seemed ok, nothing special nothing dreadful but with more colour than the other greys (May, Hammond), more sane than the Brex-o-loons (Johnson, Davis, Leadsom, Mogg, Mordaunt), more intelligent than the pseudo-intelligent Brexiters (Raab, Javid), has less baggage than others (Hunt, Gove), and has a safer seat than the otherwise outstanding candidate (Rudd),

So, in a let's have him until a known unknown something better turns up, then I think this is a good tip.

Slackbladder said:

MikeSmithson said:

Slackbladder said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

grabcocque said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Verulamius said:

The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.

Not sure if you have a typo there, but the A-G's submission is the first revocation gets a free pass. That seems to me very strange.

If the government announced revocation on 28 March and a second Article 50 on 29 March I do not think that abuse happens on the 29 March only.

It would depend on the linkage I expect between the two.

Say, we revoke on 28th March. Government falls. New election with the Tories being controlled by the ERG and they win an election on the basis they were re-submitt Art50.

Then i think the 'new' claim would be valid, as there was no linkage between the first removal and the second notifiation.

The ERG are piss and wind. What we've learned over the past fortnight is that they are nothing like as strong as they make out.

I'm just talking hypopethicals. That if a new government with a mandate to envoke Article 50 came into power after being elected, then I don't see that as being 'abusive practice'.

Yup, seems legit. I mean, you could imagine the same sequence of events without this ruling: UK PM and parliament says they want to stay, EU Council agree, UK government falls and the next government asks to leave again.

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1069965027480928256

One awaits Mr Montgomerie's equally stern words for No Deal Brexiters:

https://twitter.com/montie/status/1069965140605485058

Can I just ask that if the country is doomed can we please skip out the hyperinflation stage? It would be a terribly tedious job to refactor the IT systems I'm working on to deal with necessary extra digits.

grabcocque said:

Sean_F said:

How many MPs would take the trouble to read the full legal advice if they had it?

I mean it's only six pages.

Maybe 10%?

But, the other 90% would have an opinion, without having read it,

Mr. Meeks, point of order: Montgomerie came out in favour of the deal. Reasonably sure he did have some criticism for those against it on the Leave side.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1069965027480928256

Why do some of the proposers get a 'Mr' before their name but others don't? Is that a personal preference?

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

El_Capitano said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.

It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.

I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.

She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

Someone already pointed out a couple of weeks ago when this word cloud was put up that it is a fake.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.

Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.

yes indeed. If it is illustrative of a true point it can still be fake. Which makes it worse if the point is true, since why mock something up.

Out of interest, where is the lower "imigration"? I'm not doubting you @Benpointer, I've just failed to find it so far.

The source data is mentioned at https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/what-mattered-most-to-you-when-deciding-how-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/#.XAaPKq10eDI . If there are failings in the word cloud I find it fairly unlikely that BES would traduce their reputation intentionally - more likely that it's a failing in whatever software they've used to produce the word cloud. After a bit of digging, I think that software was probably Wordle, which can be downloaded at wordle.net, or something similar.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mortimer, it's curious how keen the Commons is to intervene on this, yet how happy it was to merely nod through treaty after treaty, even those for which a referendum had been promised.

Your grasp of modern history is as bad as your grasp of classical history or do you honestly believe Parliament merely nodded through the Maastricht Treaty for example?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mortimer, it's curious how keen the Commons is to intervene on this, yet how happy it was to merely nod through treaty after treaty, even those for which a referendum had been promised.

I think it's well-established by now that votes in favour of More Europe are final and binding, whereas votes against are temporary and provisional.

It's just a pity that the ERG are too blinkered to see that they're doing their opponents' bidding.

Stark_Dawning said:

Why do some of the proposers get a 'Mr' before their name but others don't? Is that a personal preference?

Some of them are women...

Scott_P said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Why do some of the proposers get a 'Mr' before their name but others don't? Is that a personal preference?

Some of them are women...

George Freeman?

Verulamius said:

The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

Having read through, my summary would be that he said, "Look, you can't throw a member state out against its will. A revocation that's vetoed by one or more other member states would equate to throwing out a member state against its will. States retain the right to change their mind on their intentions until enacted. So unilateral has it."

The bit about needing to send revocation by formal instrument does give the absurd mental picture of the Government, at the last moment, deciding to revoke Article 50 and sending a formal letter to be conveyed to the European Council, but rebel ERG-ers are chasing it with the intent to head it off just long enough for time to run out.

After many shenanigans, they are defeated by the quick-witted civil servants, but in a shock twist, another masked group block them at the final step and the clock runs out.

It is seen after the fact that the masked group are covert European Council/French/Spanish (delete as appropriate) operatives who didn't want to accept unilateral revocation and in a post-credit scene, are seen drinking in celebration with the bruised ERG-ers.

Suggested title: "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad Brexit"

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, did the Commons wrest the process on Maastricht away from the Government? Or on Nice? Or on Lisbon, even though the Government of the day, under Brown, was contravening its own manifesto promise?

You have to go back decades to find your example, and whilst the Commons then was truculent it went along with Major's desires.

Mr. F, they shot their pistol, having failed to load a bullet.

That said, as I wrote in my ramble published here a few weeks ago, if we end up remaining every single idiotic EU pronouncement and act (Article 13 stands out as an immediate example of one coming down the tracks) will be salt in the wound.

Whatever happens in a potentially turbulent few days ahead, this discord will not be over for years, and probably decades.

On Maastricht they took the process so far away from the government* that the government had to push through a vote of confidence.

Ratifying Nice and Maastricht was in the manifestos of all three major parties, so they did what the country voted for.

*The bastards backed the Labour amendment to accept the social chapter which was ingenious.

The ECJ news does seem to have concentrated some minds...

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1069716209665523713

Scott_P said:

The ECJ news does seem to have concentrated some minds...

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1069716209665523713

He announced that before the AG's announcement.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, did the Commons wrest the process on Maastricht away from the Government? Or on Nice? Or on Lisbon, even though the Government of the day, under Brown, was contravening its own manifesto promise?

You have to go back decades to find your example, and whilst the Commons then was truculent it went along with Major's desires.

Mr. F, they shot their pistol, having failed to load a bullet.

That said, as I wrote in my ramble published here a few weeks ago, if we end up remaining every single idiotic EU pronouncement and act (Article 13 stands out as an immediate example of one coming down the tracks) will be salt in the wound.

Whatever happens in a potentially turbulent few days ahead, this discord will not be over for years, and probably decades.

On Maastricht they took the process so far away from the government* that the government had to push through a vote of confidence.

Ratifying Nice and Maastricht was in the manifestos of all three major parties, so they did what the country voted for.

*The bastards backed the Labour amendment to accept the social chapter which was ingenious.

Perhaps Parliament could do what the country voted for in a referendum and a General Election this time, then, eh?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, did the Commons wrest the process on Maastricht away from the Government? Or on Nice? Or on Lisbon, even though the Government of the day, under Brown, was contravening its own manifesto promise?

Lisbon was Blair not Brown, and had already been watered down after two other countries rejected it.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1069878905501298688

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

El_Capitano said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.

It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.

I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.

She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

Someone already pointed out a couple of weeks ago when this word cloud was put up that it is a fake.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.

Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.

Apologies Ben I thought It was Robert. I remember him having some critical words about it as well.

grabcocque said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Verulamius said:

The ECJ has finally published the legal opinion of the Advocate General in the Wightman case.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62018CC0621&lang1=en

The document published earlier this morning was a press release issued by the ECJ.

As always it is important to read the legal opinion rather than just a summary.

So the claim is that a second notification would be an abusive practice which could be denied by the ECJ?

So Brexit would be blocked forever ? Lol.

It is certainly a defect in logic in the opinion.

It would be much cleaner to say that it would be abusive to revoke A50 unilaterally in circumstances where MS intends to re-serve also immediately.

The opinion makes clear it would be for the ECJ to decide what counts as an abusive practice. But it would not be the second invocation of A50 that was the potentially abusive practice, but the second revocation.

ECJ has given the UK a Mulligan on Brexit.

Not so. The AG is explicit in Article 155:

"Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first."

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069967605287542788

If it has considerable Tory support the battle's already won, surely?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1069965027480928256

Article 50 is going to be revoked through a private member's bill ?

Sean_F said:

My guess is that if Brexit is reversed, we'd return to the position of the 2013-15 period, with Conservatives and Labour polling in the low thirties, UKIP in the mid/high teens.

And a nastier UKIP too. There's a gap in the domestic market for one of those vulgar nativist movements that are gaining traction elsewhere to do so here. Effective leader + strong enough grievance narrative and roberto is your father's brother.

So let's not, if at all possible.

JosiasJessop said:

AlastairMeeks said:

He sounds like a Brian Blessed knock-off delivering lines that Digby Jones rejected for his tweets as too mindlessly banal.

50/1 is no doubt a great price, given the state of mind of the current Conservative party.

I hate to break it to you, but that's how all lawyers sound to us normals.

You haven't heard me speak yet. It will be a revelation.

Cox is an eBay Netenyahu. Right down to the combover, corpulence, basso profundo voice and being a right wing shitbag.

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

AlastairMeeks said:

He sounds like a Brian Blessed knock-off delivering lines that Digby Jones rejected for his tweets as too mindlessly banal.

50/1 is no doubt a great price, given the state of mind of the current Conservative party.

I hate to break it to you, but that's how all lawyers sound to us normals.

You haven't heard me speak yet. It will be a revelation.

There's a standard text you have to record for the Blessedometer reading.

It goes...

"Flash Gordon's alive!??"

Edit: apologies for that, I didn't realise the impact of the h1 tag. Promise not to use it again except for when there's a new thread.

grabcocque said:

If the Grieve amendment passes, May will completely lose control of events surrounding the MV.

Not, I guess, that she was ever really in control.

I doubt she is too much worried. Let Parliament take control and sideline ERG

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1069970500535902208?s=21

grabcocque said:

Earth, ca. 2019

Someone has pinched her burger!

notme said:

A *genuine* grievance narrative.

Yes even worse if it's genuine. And it would be.

Recidivist said:

kle4 said:

Recidivist said:

I don't know if it is just me, but my experience of posh self confident people with booming voices is that they are generally clueless buffoons. Usually with the added USP of being unmanageable. When I heard him speaking at the Tory party conference I was cringing. Case in point he was quoting Milton. A Conservative politician citing the radical's radical?

He's a successful barrister so he's clearly not a buffoon. His political skill particularly at senior levels is, however, unknown.

I never said he was a buffoon. He may well be just the man the country needs and I'll support him if that is how it turns out. I am just pointing out that his persona doesn't inspire me with confidence.

Certainly a loud mouthed windbag, if being shouty makes you PM material he has a great chance.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1069980774361980930

grabcocque said:

Know your enemy. I think we've learned the hard way that placating gammons ends in disaster. Let's flush them out.

Too late I fear. One of them asked me why he and the missus and everybody else in their street bothered voting Leave in that big referendum if this Dominic Grieve character wouldn't let it happen. I started mumbling something about perhaps they hadn't realized what was involved but was soon drowned out by the shouting. It got quite ugly. Was relieved to get back to Hampstead to be honest.

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

El_Capitano said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.

It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.

I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.

She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

Someone already pointed out a couple of weeks ago when this word cloud was put up that it is a fake.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.

Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.

Surely it would be more likely to be fake if it didn't encompass leavers mis-spelling 'immigration'?

... but twice?

I am not saying the words weren't all taken from Leave voting respondents. I am not saying immigration wasn't the most often mentioned topic. But the relative sizing of the words is totally unconvincing, which leads me to believe the relative size of 'immigration' is most likely exaggerated (compared with, for example, money or bureaucracy).

The word cloud is fake, no question. The BES should be ashamed to have published it.

That's a bit tin-foil-hat. One is imigration and the other is migration, at least as far as I can untangle the blur.

Anorak said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

El_Capitano said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.

It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.

I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.

She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

Someone already pointed out a couple of weeks ago when this word cloud was put up that it is a fake.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/784395049618509825?lang=en-gb

It was me. This word cloud is definitely a fake.

Zoom in and you will see 'imigration', with one 'm' both above and below the huge 'immigration' in the middle.

Now call me old-fashioned but I feel a valid word cloud should have one entry for each word which each word being sized proportionately to the number of times thew word is used. This has clearly been constructed unscientifically to make a (possibly valid) point. The padding words around the outside are just plain weird (plain and weird are probably in there themselves - 'etc', 'yes', 'let' and 'fit' certainly are, to pick a few random examples).

If anybody from the British Election Study would like to explain why I am wrong, I'd love to hear it.

Surely it would be more likely to be fake if it didn't encompass leavers mis-spelling 'immigration'?

... but twice?

I am not saying the words weren't all taken from Leave voting respondents. I am not saying immigration wasn't the most often mentioned topic. But the relative sizing of the words is totally unconvincing, which leads me to believe the relative size of 'immigration' is most likely exaggerated (compared with, for example, money or bureaucracy).

The word cloud is fake, no question. The BES should be ashamed to have published it.

That's a bit tin-foil-hat. One is imigration and the other is migration, at least as far as I can untangle the blur.

Whew. That's what I read too. I was beginning to think my eyesight was failing.

RobD said:

notme said:

Slackbladder said:

grabcocque said:

Yelling "show us your p*ssy" at Owen Jones.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1069971860069277698
Trump supporters really are a confused bunch.

As weasley as Owen Jones is, that's out of order.

As someone who thinks neither side should act like this, its hard not to think about the tsunami of hatred him and others have unleashed against Conservatives. I still remember the shocking ugliness of the 2015 manchester conference. A wall of hate, bile and intimidation. A friend got rape threats walking into the controlled zone.

That’s because the Tory scum deserve it.

You have seen sense at last Rob

Cyclefree said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I hate people who don’t immunise their kids. Surely we should make it a crime?

More than 500 children in London have had emergency measles vaccinations to stop an outbreak of the disease among strictly orthodox Jews.

More than 60 cases have been reported since the beginning of October. The patients had not been immunised and most were Haredi Jews from Hackney and Haringey.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-measles-epidemic-hits-uk-3wmcngcw6

They should allow head teachers to ban any pupils not immunised from schools.

If the other parents have their children immunised there is nothing to be concerned about for those parents. No we should not make it a crime, a quite ridiculous suggestion. We are still, (in spite of the referendum) a liberal democracy, and we should not force medical treatment on anyone or their children against their wishes.

The trouble is that by not immunising they are not just harming their kids but potentially others as well.

See the plentiful literature on herd immunity.

When I was pregnant with my third I discovered that one of my son's friends had not been immunised because his mother believed all the crap about it all being a frightful conspiracy or something. Had that boy had measles and been in my house at the time, as he was frequently, he could have caused my unborn child harm. No-one has a right to inflict that others because they choose not to believe in well-established science.

It should not be a crime but making it a requirement that to go to school you must be immunised seems reasonable to me - and is what is done in lots of other countries.

Yes, that would be an appropriate and proportionate response.

This been posted yet? Wars have been started for less, etc, etc. Cheeky bastards have even arranged the funnels to give the 'v' sign.
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1069961316738174979

Anorak said:

This been posted yet? Wars have been started for less, etc, etc.
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1069961316738174979

Time to deploy our Trident submarines.

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

notme said:

Slackbladder said:

grabcocque said:

Yelling "show us your p*ssy" at Owen Jones.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1069971860069277698
Trump supporters really are a confused bunch.

As weasley as Owen Jones is, that's out of order.

As someone who thinks neither side should act like this, its hard not to think about the tsunami of hatred him and others have unleashed against Conservatives. I still remember the shocking ugliness of the 2015 manchester conference. A wall of hate, bile and intimidation. A friend got rape threats walking into the controlled zone.

That’s because the Tory scum deserve it.

You have seen sense at last Rob

I’ve embraced my inner (and outer) Tory scumness.

You will feel all the better for it, you need to know explicitly that you are among the most hated scumbags in the country.

Some desperate spin going on by the ERG regarding Grieves amendment .

It might not be legally binding but politically it is . Is the executive really going to embark on a course of action with a majority of MPs against it !

If they do that then MPs will have to hit the nuclear option of revoking article 50 as a last resort to stop a no deal .

Bearing in mind that a simple motion is all that’s needed to instruct the government in that eventuality.