Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Spijed]

Remain lost the case today didn't they?

Or are they going to try again and again until they get the result they want?

That was only a temporary injunction. The full hearing is on Tuesday

[dsr]

I believe its arguing that the advice Johnson gave to the queen as part of his request was false and unlawful ergo Spijed's point that if this is proven and he has lied to the Queen on such a matter should he be duty bound to resign

But this court case has been running for several weeks, since July in fact. What was their argument then?

[Colburn_Claret]

No. The red lines are your Brexit. As we've been told repeatedly, leave means leave, there was no question about how we leave on the ballot paper. Leaving with a Norway style deal is as valid as No Deal (possibly more valid given that a number of prominent Brexiteers such as Farage referenced a Norway type deal before the referendum).

I didn't vote leave with any preconceived idea of what Brexit meant, other than Brexit. If they beheld the vote tomorrow I'd vote exactly the same way, for exactly the same reason.

As has been explained many times, there was no other way of wording the ballot paper, that wouldnt have served to undermine the leave vote.
If you know better then please tell me what the options should have been, I am genuinely interested to find out how you overcome the blatantly obvious.

[Tall Paul]

The fact is, and it is a FACT, the people shouting loudest, are the same people who would vote against a deal, if it was covered in chocolate and covered in Goldleaf. If Boris came back with a deal 10 times better than the most ardent Brexiteer ever dreamt of, these people would still vote against it.

That's not a fact, it's an opinion.

[dsr]

What I'm puzzled by is why hasn't BoJo just called an election to happen before the 31st rather than all the current shenanigans

Because he believes he will get a better election result after Brexit when the Brexit party is no longer a threat and the Liberals go back to being an irrelevance, perhaps. At the moment the Liberals are a major home for anti-referendum pro-EU voters; once that decision is lost, they're no more than a protest vote again.

And of course people will realise on 1st November that the sky hasn't fallen.

Or perhaps he is wrong, and the streets will be full of starving people clamouring to get back into the EU. Who knows. It's a gamble. But the reason he is delaying ios because he wants people to see the results of what he is doing, and he thinks they will be good results.

[CombatClaret]

If you truly believe that, why didn't you say something before the vote, or were you just stupid.

Many many people said before the vote that a lot of the thing being promised were incompatible, it was a common cause for concern.

I haven't heard anyone who voted to leave saying they only wanted to leave if we got a good deal.

I've heard several people say that and now looking around at the political landscape and state of the nation outright say 'this isn't what I voted for', 'I would not have voted has I known it would end up like this'.

As to being gullible, the people who seem to shift they're views daily are the ones who've gone from the sunlit uplands to 'we won't run out of medicine'
supporting a government who only a few days ago said they won't do the thing they've just gone and done. It must take amazing u-turns of logic and opinion to keep yourself up with what the Brexiters are the right things is or has always been from the beginning despite it clearly not being. To the point where now you're cheering that fact the PM is lying to people, first by saying he would not prorogue parliament and then saying when he did it, it had nothing to do with Brexit.
I suppose your not gullible, because that implies you can't see the lie. You can see the lies and your cheering them now.

[Lancasterclaret]

Because he believes he will get a better election result after Brexit when the Brexit party is no longer a threat and the Liberals go back to being an irrelevance, perhaps. At the moment the Liberals are a major home for anti-referendum pro-EU voters; once that decision is lost, they're no more than a protest vote again.

And of course people will realise on 1st November that the sky hasn't fallen.

Or perhaps he is wrong, and the streets will be full of starving people clamouring to get back into the EU. Who knows. It's a gamble. But the reason he is delaying ios because he wants people to see the results of what he is doing, and he thinks they will be good results.

If you think this ends on Oct 31st you are proper smacked out of your tits on Brexit.

[AndrewJB]

If you truly believe that, why didn't you say something before the vote, or were you just stupid.
I dont mean to be offensive, but all this hindsight is just a smoke screen.
People were asked if they wanted to stay or leave, we voted to leave. If the terms of that departure were so important, why did nobody flag it up at the time.
I haven't heard anyone who voted to leave saying they only wanted to leave if we got a good deal.
However remainers are full of it, that nobody voted to leave without a deal.
The fact is, and it is a FACT, the people shouting loudest, are the same people who would vote against a deal, if it was covered in chocolate and covered in Goldleaf. If Boris came back with a deal 10 times better than the most ardent Brexiteer ever dreamt of, these people would still vote against it.
So as I said it's a smokescreen, a lie. Repeated over and over, in the hope that the gullible will fall for it.
Are you gullible?

Are leavers insisting on a hard brexit not also indulging in hindsight smokescreening?

In my recollection, whenever people questioned how brexit might work, or whether it was a good idea at all during the referendum, they were accused of talking Britain down, or scaremongering.

[CombatClaret]

And of course people will realise on 1st November that the sky hasn't fallen.

The new benchmark for Brexit being a success = the world not ending

It was meant to be better.

[dsr]

If you think this ends on Oct 31st you are proper smacked out of your tits on Brexit.

The campaign to remain in the EU will end on 1st November, and the campaign to prevent us leaving without a deal will end on 1st November.

It may well be that a new campaign to rejoin the EU starts on 1st November. That's a different issue.

But looking on the bright side - all these MPs who want to leave with or without a deal, and those MPs who want to leave only if we get a deal, will suddenly all be on the same side. They'll all be happy that we're out but disappointed we haven't got a deal, so they will all work together to get a deal. Won't they? Of course they will.

[dsr]

The new benchmark for Brexit being a success = the world not ending

It was meant to be better.

You were expecting a big change on 1st November?

[Colburn_Claret]

That's not a fact, it's an opinion.

So where are all the Leavers on here, presumably there must be lots of them seeing as they were lied to, complaining that they only voted leave on the understanding it would come with a good deal.
Where are all the MPs in the house, who stood on the hustings arguing for Brexit, complaining that they only did it on the understanding that it came with a deal. They should be remains biggest weapon. If so where the hell are they. Why aren't they parading them in front of the media, the worlds press.

The FACT is, that the only ones complaining wanted to remain, they still do.

[Tall Paul]

So where are all the Leavers on here, presumably there must be lots of them seeing as they were lied to, complaining that they only voted leave on the understanding it would come with a good deal.
Where are all the MPs in the house, who stood on the hustings arguing for Brexit, complaining that they only did it on the understanding that it came with a deal. They should be remains biggest weapon. If so where the hell are they. Why aren't they parading them in front of the media, the worlds press.

The FACT is, that the only ones complaining wanted to remain, they still do.

That's completely different to the "fact" you originally described.

And it's still not a fact.

[AndrewJB]

So where are all the Leavers on here, presumably there must be lots of them seeing as they were lied to, complaining that they only voted leave on the understanding it would come with a good deal.
Where are all the MPs in the house, who stood on the hustings arguing for Brexit, complaining that they only did it on the understanding that it came with a deal. They should be remains biggest weapon. If so where the hell are they. Why aren't they parading them in front of the media, the worlds press.

The FACT is, that the only ones complaining wanted to remain, they still do.

I know two people who voted to leave that now regret doing so. In both instances it's because things have turned out so poorly - although one of them insists it's the fault of remain people "not accepting the result". Everyone else I know who voted leave has become more hardline about it.The two 'regretters' are both younger than me, and the others are all ten or more years older.

[AndrewJB]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... -oYi5v3PPM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did we vote leave to get this?

[Lancasterclaret]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... -oYi5v3PPM

Did we vote leave to get this?

You've seen Colburns post presumably?

And he's not the worst on here

[Devils_Advocate]

But this court case has been running for several weeks, since July in fact. What was their argument then?

I was just reporting what Id seen and read briefly in the news but the gist of it I can see without going into to detail is that Gina Miller and her legal team have been in dialogue with Boris' legal team since July with intent that if he tries to prorogue parliament she will look at all legal avenues to stop it. Just to add it sounds like Boris and team have been lying through their teeth about things throughout that time but as you love to lie im sure you see that as endearing.

Now that Johnson has made the move to Prorogue parliament I think Gina Miller has in the last 24 hours proceeded with her legal action with the challenge based on the advice Boris gave the Queen being dishonest and unlawful as I mentioned in my first post to you.

That is the situation as far as I gather and although I might not be 100% accurate on all the details the part that Spijed alluded to is correct

Hope that helps you

[Spijed]

I was just reporting what Id seen and read briefly in the news but the gist of it I can see without going into to detail is that Gina Miller and her legal team have been in dialogue with Boris' legal team since July with intent that if he tries to prorogue parliament she will look at all legal avenues to stop it. Just to add it sounds like Boris and team have been lying through their teeth about things throughout that time but as you love to lie im sure you see that as endearing.

Now that Johnson has made the move to Prorogue parliament I think Gina Miller has in the last 24 hours proceeded with her legal action with the challenge based on the advice Boris gave the Queen being dishonest and unlawful as I mentioned in my first post to you.

That is the situation as far as I gather and although I might not be 100% accurate on all the details the part that Spijed alluded to is correct

Hope that helps you

Isn't today's hearing and the full hearing on Tuesday separate from the one you mentioned?
This is in the Scottish courts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49521132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... -oYi5v3PPM

Did we vote leave to get this?

You can't blame the Home Office incompetence on Brexit. That's all our own doing, not the EU's.

[dsr]

I was just reporting what Id seen and read briefly in the news but the gist of it I can see without going into to detail is that Gina Miller and her legal team have been in dialogue with Boris' legal team since July with intent that if he tries to prorogue parliament she will look at all legal avenues to stop it. Just to add it sounds like Boris and team have been lying through their teeth about things throughout that time but as you love to lie im sure you see that as endearing.

Now that Johnson has made the move to Prorogue parliament I think Gina Miller has in the last 24 hours proceeded with her legal action with the challenge based on the advice Boris gave the Queen being dishonest and unlawful as I mentioned in my first post to you.

That is the situation as far as I gather and although I might not be 100% accurate on all the details the part that Spijed alluded to is correct

Hope that helps you

It's astonishing that a parochial court can stop (or thinks it can stop) an order by the Queen. I'd have thought that the Supreme Court in London would be the only court that could possibly try and overturn a royal prorogation order.

Bearing in mind that the only thing the PM needs to tell the Queen is "I want you to prorogue Parliament" and by constitutional precedent she will do it, I'd be surprised if anything Boris said could be relevant. And they're talking about a written document which was surely cleared by some significantly expert parliamentarians - unless of course they bugged the Queen's phone, which I doubt!

[aggi]

Remain lost the case today didn't they?

Or are they going to try again and again until they get the result they want?

Not really. Today's case was for a temporary injunction to stop it. The full case will be next week.

[aggi]

The EUs red lines are only incumbent on its members. They cant impose their red lines on anyone, just negotiate an agreement with the outside body. If they want to change those red lines, and move the goal posts, then they have to renegotiate. As an incumbent you dont renegotiate anything, you just get told what the changes are. If you disagree, you just get voted down, and you cant unilaterally refuse, because the way the spiders web works is if you accept some of the threads, you are tied to them all.

That's all we want, the opportunity to negotiate a deal with them, escape the spiders web, it's not a lot to ask for really. If as remainers argue the EU has never done anything but good for us, it should be fairly straight forward to start off many things by adopting the status quo, continuing as we are. That doesn't mean that if they decide to move the goal posts down the line we should have to accept, just renegotiate.

Any May's red lines were internal as well. Neither side compromised on them so that's what we ended up with. Expect the EU to compromise on their red lines because the UK refuses to compromise on theirs is pretty optimistic.

[aggi]

I didn't vote leave with any preconceived idea of what Brexit meant, other than Brexit. If they beheld the vote tomorrow I'd vote exactly the same way, for exactly the same reason.

As has been explained many times, there was no other way of wording the ballot paper, that wouldnt have served to undermine the leave vote.
If you know better then please tell me what the options should have been, I am genuinely interested to find out how you overcome the blatantly obvious.

Exactly. You're arguing against your own point.

The red lines aren't Brexit as you stated. It covers a whole range of scenarios.

[Devils_Advocate]

It's astonishing that a parochial court can stop (or thinks it can stop) an order by the Queen. I'd have thought that the Supreme Court in London would be the only court that could possibly try and overturn a royal prorogation order.

Bearing in mind that the only thing the PM needs to tell the Queen is "I want you to prorogue Parliament" and by constitutional precedent she will do it, I'd be surprised if anything Boris said could be relevant. And they're talking about a written document which was surely cleared by some significantly expert parliamentarians - unless of course they bugged the Queen's phone, which I doubt!

I'll leave that for the courts and the experts to decide as I was just trying to help you understand Spijed's point which I think you do now

[Devils_Advocate]

Isn't today's hearing and the full hearing on Tuesday separate from the one you mentioned?
This is in the Scottish courts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49521132" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Possibly Id only seen a news report and article about the Scottish one but when DSR linked it to July thought it was the Miller Case but that may be separate.

Anyhow your point was correct with regards to the case at the Scottish court whoever is behind it

[dsr]

It was the Scottish one that I was aware of. I don't know how far the John Major / Gina Miller dream team have got.

Same point for all of them, though. I'm amazed that any case aiming to strike down the actions of the Queen on advice from her Prime Minister can be heard at a level below Supreme Court.

[Colburn_Claret]

Are leavers insisting on a hard brexit not also indulging in hindsight smokescreening?

In my recollection, whenever people questioned how brexit might work, or whether it was a good idea at all during the referendum, they were accused of talking Britain down, or scaremongering.

You really are blinkered.
Leavers arent insisting on a hard Brexit, we want a deal.
The reason we haven't got one, as promised, is because for the last 2.5 years the Leavers have been lied to, by TM and her no deal is better than a bad deal, lied to by those MPs who promised Brexit means Brexit, the same MPs who lied when they said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, lied to by all those parties who claimed at the last GE that they would honour the referendum.

If Boris had been in charge for the last 2.5 years, your argument might have some merit, but as it's clearly been run by people who dont really want to leave, egged on by those that dont want to leave under any circumstances, just exactly how does a hard Brexit fall at the feet of Leavers. That's not smoke screening, just the facts.

[Spijed]

You really are blinkered.
Leavers arent insisting on a hard Brexit, we want a deal.
The reason we haven't got one, as promised, is because for the last 2.5 years the Leavers have been lied to, by TM and her no deal is better than a bad deal, lied to by those MPs who promised Brexit means Brexit, the same MPs who lied when they said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, lied to by all those parties who claimed at the last GE that they would honour the referendum.

If Boris had been in charge for the last 2.5 years, your argument might have some merit, but as it's clearly been run by people who dont really want to leave, egged on by those that dont want to leave under any circumstances, just exactly how does a hard Brexit fall at the feet of Leavers. That's not smoke screening, just the facts.

You really are daft if you think Boris actually wants a deal. He doesn't. He couldn't care less. He wants it to fail so he can be seen as standing up for people against all those nasty MP's and in return he'll get a majority.

Can you not see that?

[Colburn_Claret]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... -oYi5v3PPM

Did we vote leave to get this?

No we didn't.
The last word I heard on the subject was that any EU nationals, living here and working here, would be welcome to stay. This was offered without any reciprocal offer from the EU for British Nationals working abroad.
I think it came from Boris, just prior, or just after his election to PM.
I dont know the bare facts of this case. If you take the story as fact, then it's disgusting, on so many levels. Which is why I find it hard to fathom. I suspect, but dont know, that there is something to this story that is being hidden. A technicality to support a political point, i dont know. Whichever Brexit was never about removing hard working people, who have lived here for any length of time from our shores. I said from the beginning, that Britsin will always need foreign workers to sustain our country. That's workers with certain skills, or workers offering manual labour. What we did, or I wanted, was a closing of the shores to anyone coming here, who's only reason to be here is to take advantage of our welfare system

[martin_p]

You really are blinkered.
Leavers arent insisting on a hard Brexit, we want a deal.
The reason we haven't got one, as promised, is because for the last 2.5 years the Leavers have been lied to, by TM and her no deal is better than a bad deal, lied to by those MPs who promised Brexit means Brexit, the same MPs who lied when they said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, lied to by all those parties who claimed at the last GE that they would honour the referendum.

If Boris had been in charge for the last 2.5 years, your argument might have some merit, but as it's clearly been run by people who dont really want to leave, egged on by those that dont want to leave under any circumstances, just exactly how does a hard Brexit fall at the feet of Leavers. That's not smoke screening, just the facts.

Because the deal Leavers want IS a hard Brexit. Backstop aside the Withdrawal Agreement, defined by the ERG inspired red lines had us withdrawing from everything, free movement, customs union, single market.

[Colburn_Claret]

Exactly. You're arguing against your own point.

The red lines aren't Brexit as you stated. It covers a whole range of scenarios.

I never mentioned any red lines in that post, I asked you how the ballot paper should have been worded that would make it fair.
You haven't replied just deflected.

[Colburn_Claret]

Because the deal Leavers want IS a hard Brexit. Backstop aside the Withdrawal Agreement, defined by the ERG inspired red lines had us withdrawing from everything, free movement, customs union, single market.

You cant leave the EU if you accept free movement, customs union, single market.
They are all controlled and set by the EU. If you want them then you are also accepting that the EU can continue to tell us what to do. In what way is that leaving.
You could leave and agree to carry on in the CU, free movement, single market, AS IT IS ON 31ST OCT,.but we cant carry on letting the EU move the goal posts, from that point, unilaterally.

[Tall Paul]

What we did, or I wanted, was a closing of the shores to anyone coming here, who's only reason to be here is to take advantage of our welfare system

We could already do that but our government chose not to.

[martin_p]

You cant leave the EU if you accept free movement, customs union, single market.

If you’re going to be in all three then clearly there’s no point, but there are countries not in the EU that have some aspects of the above so your statement is incorrect. Besides, I was just pointing out that it very much is Leavers that have taken us to a hard Brexit, contrary to your statement.

[CombatClaret]

there was no other way of wording the ballot paper, that wouldnt have served to undermine the leave vote.

By presenting the many different and often mutually exclusive options all of which were campaigned for (with the exception of a No Deal) at once.

Many said it was flawed from the beginning and it was.

[martin_p]

We could already do that but our government chose not to.

You’d have thought that after three years of repeating this fact they’d stop trotting out the same lies.

[aggi]

What we did, or I wanted, was a closing of the shores to anyone coming here, who's only reason to be here is to take advantage of our welfare system

Someone else who is willing to blame the EU for UK government failings. EU immigrants can't stay here if they can't support themselves. The UK government generally chooses not to enforce this as they don't keep track of who enters, when they enter, if they're working, etc but that isn't the EU's fault.

[aggi]

I never mentioned any red lines in that post, I asked you how the ballot paper should have been worded that would make it fair.
You haven't replied just deflected.

I don't really understand your reply. You said:

The red lines are Brexit, if you give up on them you give up on Brexit

My point was that a No Deal Brexit is as valid as a Brexit that breaks the red lines. The ballot paper just said leave.

You're the one trying to define what leave means.

[Spijed]

You’d have thought that after three years of repeating this fact they’d stop trotting out the same lies.

Don't you also think it odd that with all this talk of regaining Sovereignty of our Parliament the EU are completely powerless to do anything regarding events in the last few days?

They way Brexiteers talk, you'd think the EU has the power to control the things we do in the House of Commons.

[CombatClaret]

Don't you also think it odd that with all this talk of regaining Sovereignty of our Parliament the EU are completely powerless to do anything regarding events in the last few days?

They way Brexiteers talk, you'd think the EU has the power to control the things we do in the House of Commons.

We're past that now, they're so wrapped up in the lies. Once they pretended the lies were true, now they cheer the PM for lying, knowing full well it's a lie.
Rather the warm comfort of the lie than the truth that questions the world view they've had fed to them.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

The campaign to remain in the EU will end on 1st November, and the campaign to prevent us leaving without a deal will end on 1st November.

It may well be that a new campaign to rejoin the EU starts on 1st November. That's a different issue.

But looking on the bright side - all these MPs who want to leave with or without a deal, and those MPs who want to leave only if we get a deal, will suddenly all be on the same side. They'll all be happy that we're out but disappointed we haven't got a deal, so they will all work together to get a deal. Won't they? Of course they will.

I'm happy for Johnson to blag parliament and the public into a no deal brexit, it makes the rejoiner case stronger for the next election and effectively kills off the brexit party.

[AndrewJB]

You really are blinkered.
Leavers arent insisting on a hard Brexit, we want a deal.
The reason we haven't got one, as promised, is because for the last 2.5 years the Leavers have been lied to, by TM and her no deal is better than a bad deal, lied to by those MPs who promised Brexit means Brexit, the same MPs who lied when they said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, lied to by all those parties who claimed at the last GE that they would honour the referendum.

If Boris had been in charge for the last 2.5 years, your argument might have some merit, but as it's clearly been run by people who dont really want to leave, egged on by those that dont want to leave under any circumstances, just exactly how does a hard Brexit fall at the feet of Leavers. That's not smoke screening, just the facts.

I can’t help but feel your trust is misplaced if you’re extending it to Johnson. Or if you think he’ll get a deal better than May (based on what? His personality? His level of belief?). We’ll soon see.

[nil_desperandum]

Because he believes he will get a better election result after Brexit when the Brexit party is no longer a threat and the Liberals go back to being an irrelevance, perhaps. At the moment the Liberals are a major home for anti-referendum pro-EU voters; once that decision is lost, they're no more than a protest vote again.
.

That really makes very little sense.
Scenario 1. We leave on Oct 31st with a deal. This will - in all but name - be May's deal with some modest tweaks to the backstop. There really isn't time to negotiate much else and in any case the EU have shown very little sign that they will budge much if at all.
In this scenario the deal will have been opposed by ERG types but passed thanks to two thirds of the Tory MPs and a significant number of Labour MPs.
This will make it virtually impossible for the Tories to coalesce around any manifesto, because the likes of Bonehead, Cash, Redwood and Frankwah will never accept it, and additionally it won't appease the Brexit party, so there will be all sorts of problems for the Tories in the south where the liberals will still be strong and the leavers divided.
In the north and midlands, equally, the brexit party might take some seats from Labour, but MPs like Caroline Flint will be telling their constituents that they voted for the deal that delivered brexit, so any damage to Labour will be limited.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems mop up all the disaffected remain Tories in the south, and of course the Tories risk being wiped out in Scotland.
Scenario 2.
A no deal brexit. (Brexit delivered)
1. No need for labour voters in the north / midlands to vote Tory, as they've got their brexit, and they'll hardly prefer an alt-right wing Tory manifesto to a Labour one
2. No need in fact for Labour / left of centre voters to vote Tory anywhere if leave has been delivered, so following recent trends of tactical voting they'll mostly vote with the Lib dems where they think the Lib dems can win and Labour has no chance.
3. Add to this of course there''ll most likely be a significant number of rebel Tories such as Grieve, Gauke, Hammond etc running as either independents or being re-adopted by their own constituencies.
But on top of all this, even ardent brexiteers admit that it's going to be a rocky road for a while at least if we leave without a deal, (the sunlit uplands come later), so Johnson would be fighting this election against a background of chaos, (albeit temporary) as people struggled to cope with the immediate impact of a no deal scenario.
I doubt that most people would be looking far ahead to the sunlit uplands when they cast their vote.
Now, having said all that I'm still not claiming that the Tories would actually lose outright to an ineptly led and divided Labour party, but i am suggesting that its chances of getting an overall majority would be fairly slim, and we'd again be looking at some kind of coalition.

[Spijed]

We're past that now, they're so wrapped up in the lies. Once they pretended the lies were true, now they cheer the PM for lying, knowing full well it's a lie.
Rather the warm comfort of the lie than the truth that questions the world view they've had fed to them.

"It says that EU law should prevail if it conflicts with national law."
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-law-and-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So basically the EU has no power whatsoever to enforce their will on us when it comes to us making our own laws unless there is a conflict.

And when it comes to trade agreements we'll have to negotiate those conflicting laws anyway.

[BennyD]

Any May's red lines were internal as well. Neither side compromised on them so that's what we ended up with. Expect the EU to compromise on their red lines because the UK refuses to compromise on theirs is pretty optimistic.

The EU had no reason at all to amend their red-lines after we voted down a no deal exit as we had effectively thrown away our biggest bargaining chip. Now we have got that chip back the EU are more likely to reach a deal rather than risk us walking away with £30+ billion. Their economy is on the way up sh!t creek and a budgetary loss on that scale won’t help it. Ironically, the idiots trying to block no deal are increasing the odds of a no deal exit because it increases the EU hopes of a no-jeopardy deal.

[martin_p]

The EU had no reason at all to amend their red-lines after we voted down a no deal exit as we had effectively thrown away our biggest bargaining chip. Now we have got that chip back the EU are more likely to reach a deal rather than risk us walking away with £30+ billion. Their economy is on the way up sh!t creek and a budgetary loss on that scale won’t help it. Ironically, the idiots trying to block no deal are increasing the odds of a no deal exit because it increases the EU hopes of a no-jeopardy deal.

If we walk away without paying then we won’t be getting any trade deal with our biggest market. Good thinking!

[dsr]

If we walk away without paying then we won’t be getting any trade deal with our biggest market. Good thinking!

Which gives us a better chance of getting a trade deal - paying them £39bn and then negotiating, or keeping the money back until everything is agreed?

[martin_p]

Which gives us a better chance of getting a trade deal - paying them £39bn and then negotiating, or keeping the money back until everything is agreed?

Given they have said (and we agreed) they won’t negotiate until we’ve settled the bill then the first of your options!

[RingoMcCartney]

In a 2019 talk for Yale University, Vernon Bogdanor, Research Professor at the Institute for Contemporary British History at King's College London and one of Britain's foremost constitutional experts, echoed Lord Lawson's previous speech. He argued that the reason why the so-called elite voted to Remain in the EU, is because it is more comfortable in Brussels than in provincial England.

He said: "Concerns about identity were felt most strongly by the disadvantaged and insecure – the victims of social and economic change.

"Alienated from a banking, financial and political establishment, which seemed to have waddled the crisis with hardly any difficulty.

"The elite to them, seemed not only socially mobile, benefitting from a meritocratic society but also geographically mobile.

"They were located in large conurbations, such as London, Manchester and Newcastle. All of which, supported Remain.

"The elite in Britain, and perhaps in other countries too, is internationalist.

"It is more comfortable in Brussels, than it is in Blackpool or Burnley

Mr Bogdanor noted: "But those left behind by the decline of manufacturing industry are neither socially nor geographically mobile.

They remain rooted to their decaying communities.

"Remarkably around 60 percent of the British population live within 20 miles of where they grow up.

"They did not share the multicultural perspective of Londoners, who welcomed immigration and favoured the European Union."

The expert added that the contrast between London and the rest of England may be one of the reasons why so many media commentators based in the capital missed the significance of the grassroots insurgency in provincial England, which is leading to Brexit.

He concluded: "Many of those who voted for Brexit felt they had been ignored and felt anger at the political economical establishment.

"The referendum was an opportunity to display that anger."





It's what I've been saying for years before the referendum and ever since. This is one of the establishment agreeing.

Pity that same establishment, political class and dwellers of the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers are still choosing to ignore us.

[Spijed]

Pity that same establishment, political class and dwellers of the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers are still choosing to ignore us.

London has got some of the poorest areas in the country!