Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndyClaret]

Source please Andy.

There are 20 plus in Kinnocks Labour Leave group, he's on board, maybe i'm jumping the gun, but DUP + ERG + Labour Leavers equals a decent majority.

[summitclaret]

There are 20 plus in Kinnocks Labour Leave group, he's on board, maybe i'm jumping the gun, but DUP + ERG + Labour Leavers equals a decent majority.

Nick Boles whilst not happy has said he would vote for it a well if the EU will play ball. If he will I guess all tory rebels still in the party will. Clarke will vote for any deal. The EU are going to get the blame if it ends in no deal. Things would be very promising but for the Surrender Act and guess who will get the blame if we miss the 31/10 deadline now.

[Spijed]

Nick Boles whilst not happy has said he would vote for it a well if the EU will play ball. If he will I guess all tory rebels still in the party will. Clarke will vote for any deal. The EU are going to get the blame if it ends in no deal. Things would be very promising but for the Surrender Act and guess who will get the blame if we miss the 31/10 deadline now.

But if a deal is agreed on doesn't Nigel Farage then come into play?

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that he'd try and scupper a majority for the Conservatives in that instance.

[Damo]

One of the major problems with this proposals is, that it will allow us to leave the EU.
For that reason alone, it will simply not be acceptable to many quarters of the EU parliament, and several posters on here

[Spijed]

Nigel Farage
✔
@Nigel_Farage
Boris only wants to change one part of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Despite his words there is no guarantee that we will leave the customs union, and any future trade deal needs good faith from the EU side.

It’s like putting your head in a crocodile’s mouth & hoping for the best.

[AndyClaret]

But if a deal is agreed on doesn't Nigel Farage then come into play?

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that he'd try and scupper a majority for the Conservatives in that instance.

How does Farage stop Tories voting for it ?

[summitclaret]

But if a deal is agreed on doesn't Nigel Farage then come into play?

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that he'd try and scupper a majority for the Conservatives in that instance.

Not if the deal includes a free trade deal and a PD is approved with that in. In other words the path would be clear now and there is need for a GE especially if the tory rebels and Boles return to the fold.

[Mala591]

The FIRST thing that the EU should ask themselves is - can Boris get these new proposals through the UK parliament?

I agree with other posters that he probably can. So the ball is now in the EU's court to negotiate the parts of the proposals which they can't accept BUT at all times bear in mind that any changes will still need to be acceptable to the DUP and the ERG.

[Lancasterclaret]

Farage has as many MPs as I do.

He has as much control over how this pans out in parliament as I do.

End of the day, the Brexiteers understand that this might well be the last chance to leave, and should vote accordingly.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I’m back home now from the Tory conference. Amazed at how accessible it all was. Had chats (some longer than others) with Baker, Rees Mogg, Gauke and Priti Patel. Then today I walked out of the secure zone and down the street next to Boris’s dad (shamefully I didn’t have the nerve to ask him if Boris is genuine about rebalancing the regions - which could be the difference between being a poor PM and one of the best ever).

The lowlight was having that toad Owen Jones barge in 2 yards in front of me and ambush a poor lady with his Guardian video interview - it swiftly turned into a highlight when he asked the lady why she didn’t vote Labour and she said because her family is Jewish. Quality. Needless to say it didn’t make his video on the website.

The main takeaway was that the party seemed unified and solidly behind Boris - by and large. He has huge support and I didn’t sense any recent revelations have diminished that. The members were largely friendly, polished and decent.

I was curious as to what makes Boris tick, and somebody pointed me to this brilliant article by the excellent Tom McTague. I know a lot of people cannot see past the wealth, but Boris has had more trauma in his childhood than most of us (certainly more than Corbyn), it has undoubtedly shaped him, and the long article is brilliant at explaining that. I strongly suggest people read it.

It doesn’t prove whether Boris will be a good, bad or indifferent PM, but it makes me want to support him in trying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... le/594379/

[Lancasterclaret]

The trust issue doesn't bother you?

Not even slightly?

[fidelcastro]

I’m back home now from the Tory conference. Amazed at how accessible it all was. Had chats (some longer than others) with Baker, Rees Mogg, Gauke and Priti Patel. Then today I walked out of the secure zone and down the street next to Boris’s dad (shamefully I didn’t have the nerve to ask him if Boris is genuine about rebalancing the regions - which could be the difference between being a poor PM and one of the best ever).

The lowlight was having that toad Owen Jones barge in 2 yards in front of me and ambush a poor lady with his Guardian video interview - it swiftly turned into a highlight when he asked the lady why she didn’t vote Labour and she said because her family is Jewish. Quality. Needless to say it didn’t make his video on the website.

The main takeaway was that the party seemed unified and solidly behind Boris - by and large. He has huge support and I didn’t sense any recent revelations have diminished that. The members were largely friendly, polished and decent.

I was curious as to what makes Boris tick, and somebody pointed me to this brilliant article by the excellent Tom McTague. I know a lot of people cannot see past the wealth, but Boris has had more trauma in his childhood than most of us (certainly more than Corbyn), it has undoubtedly shaped him, and the long article is brilliant at explaining that. I strongly suggest people read it.

It doesn’t prove whether Boris will be a good, bad or indifferent PM, but it makes me want to support him in trying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... le/594379/

That's right. Just ignore the fact he's a liar.

[Lowbankclaret]

I’m back home now from the Tory conference. Amazed at how accessible it all was. Had chats (some longer than others) with Baker, Rees Mogg, Gauke and Priti Patel. Then today I walked out of the secure zone and down the street next to Boris’s dad (shamefully I didn’t have the nerve to ask him if Boris is genuine about rebalancing the regions - which could be the difference between being a poor PM and one of the best ever).

The lowlight was having that toad Owen Jones barge in 2 yards in front of me and ambush a poor lady with his Guardian video interview - it swiftly turned into a highlight when he asked the lady why she didn’t vote Labour and she said because her family is Jewish. Quality. Needless to say it didn’t make his video on the website.

The main takeaway was that the party seemed unified and solidly behind Boris - by and large. He has huge support and I didn’t sense any recent revelations have diminished that. The members were largely friendly, polished and decent.

I was curious as to what makes Boris tick, and somebody pointed me to this brilliant article by the excellent Tom McTague. I know a lot of people cannot see past the wealth, but Boris has had more trauma in his childhood than most of us (certainly more than Corbyn), it has undoubtedly shaped him, and the long article is brilliant at explaining that. I strongly suggest people read it.

It doesn’t prove whether Boris will be a good, bad or indifferent PM, but it makes me want to support him in trying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... le/594379/

Good insight

Thank you

[CrosspoolClarets]

Farage has as many MPs as I do.

He has as much control over how this pans out in parliament as I do.

End of the day, the Brexiteers understand that this might well be the last chance to leave, and should vote accordingly.

It’s a great offer if you come at it with the logic of us having to be outside the Custom’s Union. It only becomes a bad idea to people who want us to be in that closer alignment.

I suspect the mood in the UK will now swiftly accept that we will be out of the CU but need a close deal in that context. The EU will struggle to maintain intransigence with that mood here.

[Devils_Advocate]

[CrosspoolClarets]

The trust issue doesn't bother you?

Not even slightly?

Bearing in mind Blair took us to war and Cameron took us to austerity, trust is important yes, but trust in policy is more crucial than trust in fidelity (for example). The article explains clearly why he struggles with his self discipline in those regards.

[Lancasterclaret]

You are either trustworthy or you are not.

He lies as soon as he breathes.

That's a huge problem for an PM charged with uniting the country

[Lowbankclaret]

You are either trustworthy or you are not.

He lies as soon as he breathes.

That's a huge problem for an PM charged with uniting the country

And the difference between him , Corbyn and Swinson is.?????

[KateR]

That's right. Just ignore the fact he's a liar.

you really need to get past this line, it's meaningless and tiresome, try to have a little more substance to your argument please since virtually everyone will agree with you.

[Spijed]

Interesting about splitting the vote. Not a guaranteed Tory majority.

https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/sta ... 0812343296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrosspoolClarets]

You are either trustworthy or you are not.

He lies as soon as he breathes.

That's a huge problem for an PM charged with uniting the country

I sympathise with his issues. Anybody whose mother was a psychiatric inpatient for many months when they are a kid, and whose father was also absent a lot, with him then being sent off to boarding school, will struggle. Compulsive exaggerating and lying can be one symptom.

But as a proven liar I cannot praise him until he succeeds. I fear many in the country will hold off on voting for him until he proves it too, which is a vicious cycle.

BUT, if he delivers a £4,000 pay rise to our poorest, takes us out of the EU, builds his hospitals, and railways, and genuinely rebalances the regions, he will indeed have lied in the past but has told the truth when it really, really matters. Then he will be viewed as a great PM. But I agree, there is risk.

[Lancasterclaret]

And the difference between him , Corbyn and Swinson is.?????

He's a multiple proven liar.

[Darthlaw]

He's a multiple proven liar.

Corbyn couldn’t even tell the truth when he was caught calling May a ‘stupid woman’. How we’re meant to trust someone who can’t admit something so small, in the face of such obvious evidence, is beyond me. If he’ll lie about something that small, what else is he capable of?

[Lancasterclaret]

I sympathise with his issues. Anybody whose mother was a psychiatric inpatient for many months when they are a kid, and whose father was also absent a lot, with him then being sent off to boarding school, will struggle. Compulsive exaggerating and lying can be one symptom.

But as a proven liar I cannot praise him until he succeeds. I fear many in the country will hold off on voting for him until he proves it too, which is a vicious cycle.

BUT, if he delivers a £4,000 pay rise to our poorest, takes us out of the EU, builds his hospitals, and railways, and genuinely rebalances the regions, he will indeed have lied in the past but has told the truth when it really, really matters. Then he will be viewed as a great PM. But I agree, there is risk.

I take what you are saying, but I have zero trust in him not to trash and demean the office he holds.

Lot of it is out of his control, but he can make a start by obeying the law in the next month and doing things properly.

[AndrewJB]

you really need to get past this line, it's meaningless and tiresome, try to have a little more substance to your argument please since virtually everyone will agree with you.

Do you think Johnson's honesty is unimportant? Fair enough for you if you can overlook what most people consider an important characteristic in a leader. For me it's not just his private life - which sadly enough will be raked over like mad before the next election is called, because a certain type of voter is turned off by that - but it seems to be his default setting when under pressure, and even when not. And if you don't mind the fact he's dishonest - a lot - how have you concluded it's also tiresome to everyone else? Maybe people with a stronger moral fibre than that of condoning lying think it's a real issue?

[summitclaret]

Do you think Johnson's honesty is unimportant? Fair enough for you if you can overlook what most people consider an important characteristic in a leader. For me it's not just his private life - which sadly enough will be raked over like mad before the next election is called, because a certain type of voter is turned off by that - but it seems to be his default setting when under pressure, and even when not. And if you don't mind the fact he's dishonest - a lot - how have you concluded it's also tiresome to everyone else? Maybe people with a stronger moral fibre than that of condoning lying think it's a real issue?

I don't care for him much and as soon as he gets us out with a WA now and then a free trade deal with the EU he can be culled. How do you fancy Raab as our PM?

[LeuvenClaret]

The option left for Johnson is that he will resign before deadline day. Not be tide to the letter of the law, we leave and he rises like a Phoenix as leader of the conservatives after the deadline.

Do remainers have a plan B?

[claret_in_exile]

I'm a little confused. Isn't this wonderful, all-new, all-fantastic new super new plan basically the same thing that got voted down three times in this Parliament already?

How is it different to the backstop, which was supposed to be a red line? I genuinely don't see the difference.

[Devils_Advocate]

The option left for Johnson is that he will resign before deadline day. Not be tide to the letter of the law, we leave and he rises like a Phoenix as leader of the conservatives after the deadline.

Do remainers have a plan B?

When you say deadline day which date do you refer to?

[KateR]

Do you think Johnson's honesty is unimportant? Fair enough for you if you can overlook what most people consider an important characteristic in a leader. For me it's not just his private life - which sadly enough will be raked over like mad before the next election is called, because a certain type of voter is turned off by that - but it seems to be his default setting when under pressure, and even when not. And if you don't mind the fact he's dishonest - a lot - how have you concluded it's also tiresome to everyone else? Maybe people with a stronger moral fibre than that of condoning lying think it's a real issue?

It is tiresome for the reasons I gave which you appear to have dismissed and asked again. If you state something/anything and the vast majority agree with you then why say it again and again on every page, is it you're trying to make a point and get people to agree with you, when they have already stated yes we agree. Or is it you're hoping some new reader comes along and disagrees so you can make the point yet again.

Either way it is tiresome, we understand, we get it that you do not like/trust BJ and are not willing to vote for him regardless of what he does for the country, good/bad or indifferent.

He has lied, yes he has, does he bluster, yes he does, I doubt that there are not many people who would disagree with this.

Will people still vote for him, the same people who just admitted to this, you had better believe it, which I know you do which is why you, the opposition, the EU and all remainers are also scared of him.

Therefore once again I ask, please stop making the same comments which have been accepted and come up with something new and preferably not some other form of muck spreading, show a better option to what he has offered, and why it is better, who is offering it?

I can understand any LibDem people jumping on this and saying, vote for us, revoke Article 50, remain, in the EU we trust and freely give up our country, it's a valid argument, not one likely to succeed but please provide something different in a way it can be digested and replied to sensibly.

[claret_in_exile]

It is tiresome for the reasons I gave which you appear to have dismissed and asked again. If you state something/anything and the vast majority agree with you then why say it again and again on every page, is it you're trying to make a point and get people to agree with you, when they have already stated yes we agree. Or is it you're hoping some new reader comes along and disagrees so you can make the point yet again.

Either way it is tiresome, we understand, we get it that you do not like/trust BJ and are not willing to vote for him regardless of what he does for the country, good/bad or indifferent.

He has lied, yes he has, does he bluster, yes he does, I doubt that there are not many people who would disagree with this.

Will people still vote for him, the same people who just admitted to this, you had better believe it, which I know you do which is why you, the opposition, the EU and all remainers are also scared of him.

Therefore once again I ask, please stop making the same comments which have been accepted and come up with something new and preferably not some other form of muck spreading, show a better option to what he has offered, and why it is better, who is offering it?

I can understand any LibDem people jumping on this and saying, vote for us, revoke Article 50, remain, in the EU we trust and freely give up our country, it's a valid argument, not one likely to succeed but please provide something different in a way it can be digested and replied to sensibly.

Bloody hell. A well-reasoned comment. What's that doing in this thread?

[Mala591]

I'm a little confused. Isn't this wonder, all-new, all-fantastic new super plan basically the same thing that got voted down three times in this Parliament already?

How is it different to the backstop, which was supposed to be a red line? I genuinely don't see the difference.

This new plan allows Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) to leave the EU completely (no backstop needed) on Nov 1st. and negotiations on a free trade agreement will begin.

Northern Ireland will leave the EU customs union but remain in the EU single market for the foreseeable future and will vote every four years to stay in or pull out.

I think...

[aggi]

Bearing in mind Blair took us to war and Cameron took us to austerity, trust is important yes, but trust in policy is more crucial than trust in fidelity (for example). The article explains clearly why he struggles with his self discipline in those regards.

I wouldn't disagree with this. (Although we've seen potential issues with his private life impacting on his professional life in the past few weeks.)

However, the issue is that he's shown that he can't be trusted in policy as well.

His mayorship was full of promises that didn't happen. Or going back to when he was an MP, do you think Boris will be in front of the bulldozers when they come to build the third runway?

I know you made your mind up very early that you were going to believe what he said, regardless of anything to the contrary, but blind belief will only go so far.

[KateR]

I wouldn't disagree with this. (Although we've seen potential issues with his private life impacting on his professional life in the past few weeks.)

However, the issue is that he's shown that he can't be trusted in policy as well.

His mayorship was full of promises that didn't happen. Or going back to when he was an MP, do you think Boris will be in front of the bulldozers when they come to build the third runway?

I know you made your mind up very early that you were going to believe what he said, regardless of anything to the contrary, but blind belief will only go so far.

Why is it always someone else's blind belief? Circumstances change, people change there minds, think of all the MP's who voted for Article 50, these same MP's, in all parties changed there minds or started putting conditions on what they said and voted for.

I ask you genuinely have you never ever changed your mind on anything?

Sometime the alternatives to what you originally wanted become so onerous that you have to say, well ok I suppose that might not work.

I asked several questions today, thinks I was hoping some of you would try to explain and help me change my mind, I pointed out the grave risk of the EU rejecting this proposal out of hand and particularly for Ireland but no response, yet very clear you all want to jump on the liar/untrustworthy bandwagon rather than things far more important.

[fidelcastro]

you really need to get past this line, it's meaningless and tiresome, try to have a little more substance to your argument please since virtually everyone will agree with you.

Very well. I shall point out that Boris has twice been sacked for lying, misled the Queen, illegally prorogued parliament and has not ruled out ignoring the law when it comes to 'no deal'.

Is that better?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Unlawfully prorogued, why say it's illegal when the supreme court didn't?

[fidelcastro]

Unlawfully prorogued, why say it's illegal when the supreme court didn't?

Semantics, Sid. Semantics.

[aggi]

Why is it always someone else's blind belief? Circumstances change, people change there minds, think of all the MP's who voted for Article 50, these same MP's, in all parties changed there minds or started putting conditions on what they said and voted for.

I ask you genuinely have you never ever changed your mind on anything?

Sometime the alternatives to what you originally wanted become so onerous that you have to say, well ok I suppose that might not work.

I asked several questions today, thinks I was hoping some of you would try to explain and help me change my mind, I pointed out the grave risk of the EU rejecting this proposal out of hand and particularly for Ireland but no response, yet very clear you all want to jump on the liar/untrustworthy bandwagon rather than things far more important.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I'm referring to specifically though is Johnson's record of lying and there hasn't been any suggestion that this is changing. He's still happy to lie to get his way and it doesn't just impact on him.

An obvious example of this was the recent unlawful proroguing of Parliament. Johnson was all over the press saying this was nothing to do with Brexit (which was weird because when it was deemed unlawful lots of people seemed to complain that it was because people were trying to stop Brexit) which everyone was aware was a lie.

This then permeates through everything that he does. For instance there is mention of checks at unspecified locations in the newly proposed WA. JOhnson has said that these won't be at the border but because he has a track record of lying no-one believes him and this impacts the proposal.

[Spijed]

Priti Patel is another one who is known for being as dishonest as the day is long:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... al-justice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

I sympathise with his issues. Anybody whose mother was a psychiatric inpatient for many months when they are a kid, and whose father was also absent a lot, with him then being sent off to boarding school, will struggle. Compulsive exaggerating and lying can be one symptom.

But as a proven liar I cannot praise him until he succeeds. I fear many in the country will hold off on voting for him until he proves it too, which is a vicious cycle.

BUT, if he delivers a £4,000 pay rise to our poorest, takes us out of the EU, builds his hospitals, and railways, and genuinely rebalances the regions, he will indeed have lied in the past but has told the truth when it really, really matters. Then he will be viewed as a great PM. But I agree, there is risk.

Do you know that in 2017 you could have voted for several parties that would have delivered on everything in your last paragraph, and more? You're obviously a Tory Party member, so I understand why you didn't, but it was there.

As for Johnson's early personal life, there are many people even in the current parliament, who have had worse early lives, but without the family money to help them along, and they didn't turn into entitled liars (as far as I know, as much has he has).

[Lancasterclaret]

Why is it always someone else's blind belief? Circumstances change, people change there minds, think of all the MP's who voted for Article 50, these same MP's, in all parties changed there minds or started putting conditions on what they said and voted for.

I ask you genuinely have you never ever changed your mind on anything?

Sometime the alternatives to what you originally wanted become so onerous that you have to say, well ok I suppose that might not work.

I asked several questions today, thinks I was hoping some of you would try to explain and help me change my mind, I pointed out the grave risk of the EU rejecting this proposal out of hand and particularly for Ireland but no response, yet very clear you all want to jump on the liar/untrustworthy bandwagon rather than things far more important.

Because its very important we have trust in our politicians.

Johnson has zero trust from me, because of his past record on trust issues, be it Heathrow, the garden bridge, his decision to go for Brexit because it helped his career etc etc etc

I'm anti-Brexit, but I like to think I'm pretty fair.

I just don't see any circumstances in which Johnson is a good PM.

If you back Brexit above anything else, then yes, he might be the man to take us clean out of the EU, but he might also be the man who would do it a way that wrecks the UK in the process, and he'd do it if he thought it would save his career.

I'm very wary of people who use a lie when a truth or an apology is a perfectly reasonable way to go, and Johnson just dumbs down on the lie and keeps on going.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Semantics, Sid. Semantics.

The court stated it was unlawful.

You're purposely stating it was illegal, aka talking ********.

If that was a brexiteer making that error on purpose you lot would be all over it.

They also couldn't definitely state he lied to the queen, yet I've seen it said on here that he definitely did

[Lancasterclaret]

The court stated it was unlawful.

You're purposely stating it was illegal, aka talking ********.

If that was a brexiteer making that error on purpose you lot would be all over it.

They also couldn't definitely state he lied to the queen, yet I've seen it said on here that he definitely did

Its a ******** argument for a party built on maintaining law and order. If its unlawful, its bad. If its illegal, its bad.

And Johnson said before the judgement that it was nothing to do with Brexit.

But after it, he said it was "stopping Brexit"

So he lied to the queen, the court, you, me, absolutely everybody, but its okay, because he backs Brexit.

You are quite aware that under any other circumstances he'd have had to resign I take it?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yeah he probably would have to resign, but he hasn't and no one's going to force him by the looks of it, they aren't going to force a GE because they don't believe they can win and the same with a vote of no confidence.

We are stuck with him because the opposition parties are utterly toss.

I just laugh at the continued efforts to say he performed an illegal act when the highest court in the land said it wasn't.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I'm a little confused. Isn't this wonderful, all-new, all-fantastic new super new plan basically the same thing that got voted down three times in this Parliament already?

How is it different to the backstop, which was supposed to be a red line? I genuinely don't see the difference.

Because the backstop kept us in the EU Custom’s Union in essence, and prevented us from doing trade deals elsewhere (and also prevented us leaving of our own accord). It would have been harder to leave the backstop than to leave the EU in the first place.

The new proposal does none of those things, it allows us to strike independant deals around the world and gives Stormont the power to exit from the NI specific bits.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yeah he probably would have to resign, but he hasn't and no one's going to force him by the looks of it, they aren't going to force a GE because they don't believe they can win and the same with a vote of no confidence.

We are stuck with him because the opposition parties are utterly toss.

I just laugh at the continued efforts to say he performed an illegal act when the highest court in the land said it wasn't.

But its absolutely crucial that you think "unlawful" is fine, and "illegal" is not.

To me, they both are not something that should never be associated with the PM of the UK.

But I don't back Brexit, so I don't have to justify what he does because he does back Brexit.

[Lancasterclaret]

Because the backstop kept us in the EU Custom’s Union in essence, and prevented us from doing trade deals elsewhere (and also prevented us leaving of our own accord). It would have been harder to leave the backstop than to leave the EU in the first place.

The new proposal does none of those things, it allows us to strike independant deals around the world and gives Stormont the power to exit from the NI specific bits.

The fact that these independent deals will be worse that the current ones we have as part of a much larger trading area is now conveniently forgotten about I take it?

[KateR]

Very well. I shall point out that Boris has twice been sacked for lying, misled the Queen, illegally prorogued parliament and has not ruled out ignoring the law when it comes to 'no deal'.

Is that better?

ACTUALLY NO. You have repeated what everyone believes to a certain degree, why? For these major crimes did the opposition try to vote him out, has there a court in the land taken him in to custody on any of these charges? Errr, no I don't thinks so, there is a reason why no none of this has happened.

E for effort but sorry failed.

Instead of continuing this line why don't you answer my questions, offer a rationale, one that can be debated instead, scoring cheap shots will not influence anyone regardless of which side of the fence you are sitting.

[martin_p]

The fact that these independent deals will be worse that the current ones we have as part of a much larger trading area is now conveniently forgotten about I take it?

As long as it’s a good old red, white and blue British deal they don’t care!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

But its absolutely crucial that you think "unlawful" is fine, and "illegal" is not.

To me, they both are not something that should never be associated with the PM of the UK.

But I don't back Brexit, so I don't have to justify what he does because he does back Brexit.

*Rechecks comments, can't see where I've said it's fine*

If it was illegal then he'd be treated entirely differently by the courts and many other people, but it wasn't declared illegal and neither have I stated that what was done was fine once it was declared unlawful.