Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[KateR]

Maastricht scrutiny - five months

Lisbon scrutiny - three months

WA - three days

Ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe it

I think many people believe it's broken, but those responsible on both sides seem incapable of being able to fix it, or simply do not want to fix it. Not to fear it will soon be Jan 2020, we will all have had a great Christmas, be full of cheer for our fellow beings, hold hands and moved boldly forward as one nation as a shinning beacon for the world to see.

[Lowbankclaret]

One we will have to agree to disagree on, I think defence spending should be reduced, not stopped but that's for another time and place.

I know we are going to disagree, but unfortunately due to the US pulling out of global security for shipping. We need oil and need to get it to our shores.
If you Peter Zeihan’s newsletters it does give a good overview of global events and likely outcomes. However I think his extreme outcomes should be taken as just that extremes and not likely
However his predictions about the Middle East 7 years ago look to be pretty accurate.

[BennyD]

Yes, Super Jonny Bercow has stayed true to form and cemented his reputation, as expected. Got to love him really - I will certainly miss him.

He mentioned that he could have used circumstances (letter now sent) to go either way with his decision. He did not mention the peculiar circumstance of the country being 10 days away from leaving the EU and the country bizarrely not knowing whether MPs support the deal or not! He had a choice and coincidentally he chose to please his Brexit blocker friends once more (Benn, Grieve, Starmer delighted no doubt).

It does not kill the deal perhaps but momentum is lost and must make leaving by the 31st October unlikely now (the minimum punishment for Johnson for having brought back a deal that might be supported - if only we knew!). There will be plenty of scope for further shenanigans and delay over Bill amendments and so on.

Like I said, Bercow is a f*cking disgrace and the sooner he goes the better. All he wants, is his legacy to be the scrapping of Brexit and he’s doing all he can to achieve it. Another one for the prick list.

[martin_p]

WA - three and a half years

There’s only been any sort of WA for a year and the latest version of it has existed for less than a week.

[martin_p]

Like I said, Bercow is a f*cking disgrace and the sooner he goes the better. All he wants, is his legacy to be the scrapping of Brexit and he’s doing all he can to achieve it. Another one for the prick list.

He’s going in ten days.

[Lowbankclaret]

You've just cited the very thing we've opted out of.

We are trying to opt out of by leaving the EU.

I still don’t believe it will happen.

[BennyD]

That's quite a claim to make.
I'm hard pressed to think of any current MP who is less trustworthy based on the available evidence.
He was initially sacked by The Times for lying in an important article.
He later became editor of the Spectator in 1999 after telling owner Conrad Black, (who was later convicted of fraud), that he would not pursue a political career. This promise was broken in 2001 when he won election as Conservative MP for Henley in Oxfordshire.
Three years later he was forced to apologise for an article in tht magazine which blamed drunken Liverpool fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster and suggested that the people of the city were wallowing in their victim status.
When Michael Howard became leader of the Conservatives in 2003 he gave Boris Johnson two new jobs – party vice-chairman and shadow arts minister.
He was sacked from both positions in November 2004 after assuring Mr Howard that tabloid reports of his affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt were false and an “inverted pyramid of piffle”. When the story was found to be true, he refused to resign.
As London Mayor: Having promised in his 2008 manifesto to ensure there would be manned ticket offices at every train station, he quickly agreed to widespread closures to pay for a 24-hour tube.
He also promised to eradicate rough sleeping by 2012, only for it to double during his leadership. He was also accused of telling “barefaced lies” after he stated that police numbers had increased in London despite government cuts.
He also backed the infamous claim on the side of the bus that the UK was sending £350m a week to the EU, followed by “let’s fund our NHS instead”. The UK Statistics Authority issued an official statement in May 2016 describing the claim as “misleading”, but Mr Johnson repeated it in an article in the Telegraph in September 2017.
Additionally he made ridiculous claims about Turkey's imminent membership of the EU, despite no evidence to support this, and of course an innocent British woman is stuck in an Iranian prison due to his careless undiplomatic talk.
Oh, and lest we forget, he is widely assumed to have lied to the Queen over the reasons for prorogation, though that cannot be proven.
Edit: Martin you linked an article whilst I was busy extrapolating the info from a few sources. Anyway, people don't always open links, so my research might go a little further to bring Johnson's character into question.

Obviously you are a remaniac yet, despite all this, I would still regard him as being infinitely more trustworthy than every single MP trying to alter, interfere with or block Brexit.

[willsclarets]

We are trying to opt out of by leaving the EU.

I still don’t believe it will happen.

No, the point is we've already opted out of the thing you're concerned about. We have that veto.

[KateR]

But parliament is made up of MPs and every single MP has a vote, that doesn’t make sense.

It doesn't to you obviously.

Do you not think it is suspicious that no one on the EU side who is able to vote has not one single issue that has been raised, for me two conclusions, majority do not even look at the minutia and/or they work as one team trusting there representatives in the negotiations?

For me I think to many MP's with no background what so ever to be in a position to actually look at the deal are involved and they react, it is very clear surely that the UK made up of essentially 4 countries can not trust others within unlike the 27 of the EU. That for me is the real shame and it's not going to change soon unfortunately, I do not see personally how continual delays help to resolve our leaving, that is the main issue for me, these are people not actually interested in getting a deal agreed. These are the people determined to ensure there is no deal regardless of what they said in 2016, therefore this drags on and on without any action that actually allows the country to move forward and therefore are putting there own desires before the country and in many cases against there constituents, but then again I believe you know this.

[Lowbankclaret]

No, the point is we've already opted out of the thing you're concerned about. We have that veto.

In 2019 we do.

If we stay in when are we forced to join.

Closer political union you understand.

Your thinking the EU stands still. It’s never done that. Just look at how it has developed.

History shows it’s all about gaining control of all of Europe.

[CombatClaret]

Governments own assessments predicts the hit to the economy will be 11 times larger than the contributions to the EU everyone was so worked up about.

And we will have to make that up somehow whilst not being in a trading bloc on our very doorstep which contains 27 of the 35 advanced economies on this planet.
Madness, a 100 billion hit to the economy, don't remember that on a bus.

[CombatClaret]

"Get Brexit Done" - a vacuous statement designed to appeal to voters who have no clue how any of this works. Probably the same people who voted because of polar bear and EU kettle ban Facebook ads

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/316b ... e11653b68e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EHY8W34XYAUVv8K.jpg (82.48 KiB) Viewed 1564 times

[BennyD]

Hopefully, Poland will veto any extension and that will torpedo the Benn act and Letwin amendment. If so, we are in real danger of leaving with no-deal thanks primarily to Bercow (how deliciously ironic) and the rest of the remainer MPs. Therefore most of any negative impact can be laid at their feet because they forced us to leave without the agreed deal being implemented. Perfect!

[Lowbankclaret]

Governments own assessments predicts the hit to the economy will be 11 times larger than the contributions to the EU everyone was so worked up about.

And we will have to make that up somehow whilst not being in a trading bloc on our very doorstep which contains 27 of the 35 advanced economies on this planet.
Madness, a 100 billion hit to the economy, don't remember that on a bus.

We were all going to die of AIDS.

And we were all going to die of CJD due to mad cow disease.

Vote leave and large job loses, an emergency budget needed.

It’s all wearing a bit thin.

Yes we will take a hit, but not as big as you are saying.

[ClaretAndJew]

We were all going to die of AIDS.

And we were all going to die of CJD due to mad cow disease.

Vote leave and large job loses, an emergency budget needed.

It’s all wearing a bit thin.

Yes we will take a hit, but not as big as you are saying.

And I'm sure if there were no warnings or predictions made then loads of people would complain they weren't informed.

[martin_p]

It doesn't to you obviously.

Do you not think it is suspicious that no one on the EU side who is able to vote has not one single issue that has been raised, for me two conclusions, majority do not even look at the minutia and/or they work as one team trusting there representatives in the negotiations?

For me I think to many MP's with no background what so ever to be in a position to actually look at the deal are involved and they react, it is very clear surely that the UK made up of essentially 4 countries can not trust others within unlike the 27 of the EU. That for me is the real shame and it's not going to change soon unfortunately, I do not see personally how continual delays help to resolve our leaving, that is the main issue for me, these are people not actually interested in getting a deal agreed. These are the people determined to ensure there is no deal regardless of what they said in 2016, therefore this drags on and on without any action that actually allows the country to move forward and therefore are putting there own desires before the country and in many cases against there constituents, but then again I believe you know this.

I can guarantee every single Brexit MEP will vote against the deal in its current form (which is ironic). And it’s a hit rich to be wondering why our system on democracy can’t be more like the EUs at this stage!

Those that have ‘frustrated Brexit’ so far have done so to stop no deal. Many have and will vote for a deal, but I believe you know that.

[martin_p]

In 2019 we do.

If we stay in when are we forced to join.

Closer political union you understand.

Your thinking the EU stands still. It’s never done that. Just look at how it has developed.

History shows it’s all about gaining control of all of Europe.

You’ve been proper Brexit Party brainwashed! That just isn’t true.

[claret_in_exile]

I can guarantee every single Brexit MEP will vote against the deal in its current form (which is ironic). And it’s a hit rich to be wondering why our system on democracy can’t be more like the EUs at this stage!

Those that have ‘frustrated Brexit’ so far have done so to stop no deal. Many have and will vote for a deal, but I believe you know that.

I don't agree with that at all. What concerns me is that a large number of the politicians who have repeatedly voted against the various deals proposed have done so to scupper Brexit. The LibDems and the SNP have admitted to doing so, while Labour won't admit that because they're wanting power in 2022.

[!aiboforceN]

I admit that I am largely ignorant to the economics involved in debates about leaving the European Union, so - in many ways - my opinion on whether we should or shouldn't leave is redundant... However, since the referendum of 2016, I've been appalled by the treatment of my friends, neighbours and respected colleagues who happen to either have different coloured skin, a slightly "funny" accent, a disability, or another sexuality or gender identity.

Decent, lovely (often British) friends, neighbours and respected colleagues, who make major contributions to society, have been intimidated, physically attacked and verbally abused and made to feel extremely unwelcome and frightened - not just by other members of the public - but increasingly by legislation that threatens to separate them from their partners and children.

Brexit being used as blanket justification for prejudice and persecution by individuals, groups (and even political parties) who - prior to 2016 - didn't feel empowered to behave in the way they do now, makes me very sad indeed.

I am - of course - aware that "fear of the unknown" has always led to mistrust and persecution of minority groups; and equally that being a member of a minority group does not make one any more of a "good" (or "bad") person than anyone else... but the sudden rise in extremist behaviour - inspired by the referendum result - is something that terrifies me and something I never expected to experience.

For this reason alone (and there are others - including my own business collapsing as a direct result of "Brexit-fear"), I wish that the original referendum had never taken place, but now that it has, I certainly can't bring myself to back or trust the self-appointed champions of "thug culture".

As a consequence, I simply can't support Brexit - even though I recognise that many who do often have valid and benign reasons for their beliefs. Sadly, I see these people as inadvertently (or blindly) bolstering those who would promote the kinds of prejudice and persecution that lead to hate crimes.

[martin_p]

I don't agree with that at all. What concerns me is that a large number of the politicians who have repeatedly voted against the various deals proposed have done so to scupper Brexit. The LibDems and the SNP have admitted to doing so, while Labour won't admit that because they're wanting power in 2022.

Yes, the Lib Dem’s an SNP have been clear in their opposition to Brexit, but then Scotland voted remain and the Lib Dems will be doing what their members and constituents want. But together they don’t have the numbers to stop Brexit by themselves.

Labour want a softer Brexit and we’d be out by now if that’s what had been negotiated.

But the numbers are there in parliament for leaving with the right deal, it’s only no deal that is unpalatable for them.

[CombatClaret]

We were all going to die of AIDS.

And we were all going to die of CJD due to mad cow disease.

Vote leave and large job loses, an emergency budget needed.

It’s all wearing a bit thin.

Yes we will take a hit, but not as big as you are saying.

Exaggerate to downplay, it's the governments own assessment so probably underplaying it. How big a hit to the UK economy is acceptable? Given that Leave campaigned on the fact there would be none?

[Lowbankclaret]

You’ve been proper Brexit Party brainwashed! That just isn’t true.

Really so just were did it start?

Why did it stop there.

Why has it added country after country.

And now a defence budget.

If that’s not progressive, what is?

[willsclarets]

In 2019 we do.

If we stay in when are we forced to join.

Closer political union you understand.

Your thinking the EU stands still. It’s never done that. Just look at how it has developed.

History shows it’s all about gaining control of all of Europe.

Not one consession that you've provided conjecture in the face of facts. I shouldn't be surprised, but you clearly thought the UK had less power over its own defence policy than it does in reality.

[android]

Those that have ‘frustrated Brexit’ so far have done so to stop no deal.

Come on Martin, deep down, you must know that is not true. Avoiding no deal is certainly a priority for some. But the vast majority of MPs who have consistently voted against a deal and consistently voted to frustrate Brexit (including most Labour MPs) simply want to find a way to stop Brexit. You do not seem dim so you must know that.

[TVC15]

We were all going to die of AIDS.

And we were all going to die of CJD due to mad cow disease.

Wow !
You guys just can’t help exaggerating / making stuff up can you ?!!!

[martin_p]

Really so just were did it start?

Why did it stop there.

Why has it added country after country.

And now a defence budget.

If that’s not progressive, what is?

You implied we’d be forced to join an EU Army if we don’t leave. That’s just not true.

[KateR]

I can guarantee every single Brexit MEP will vote against the deal in its current form (which is ironic). And it’s a hit rich to be wondering why our system on democracy can’t be more like the EUs at this stage!

Those that have ‘frustrated Brexit’ so far have done so to stop no deal. Many have and will vote for a deal, but I believe you know that.

Martin, I have talked several times on this thread stating I thought the EU were much better set up to sit at a negotiating table than the UK were, it has obviously proven out right, not that I am smart as I believe many people thought the same. So I do blame those supporting the Brexit as well as those today trying to stop it.

I don't believe it has anything to do with democracy but it does have to do with ensuring key stakeholders are on board, which was never done, politics obviously somewhat different to a company boardroom but in an instance like this after a referendum the parties should have come together to get the best possible negotiation.

On your second point yes I agree but I do despair as to when this will end and when the real work of resolving the next steps starts, goodness knows if anyone will have learnt anything from this shambles though

[Lowbankclaret]

[quote="Lancasterclaret"]Me?

God knows.

But extension then GE makes sense.

Amendments already being tabled, to his bill.

I honestly cannot see Boris getting it through.

[Lowbankclaret]

You implied we’d be forced to join an EU Army if we don’t leave. That’s just not true.

That’s ultimately what I believe. You don’t and I respect that.

If we remain, which I think will be the outcome.

We can review this in ten years time if .i am still breathing.

[Lowbankclaret]

Wow !
You guys just can’t help exaggerating / making stuff up can you ?!!!

Can I ask, did you live through the AIDS campaigns on TV and leaflets though the door.

It got more attention than zbrexit , that’s for sure.

[ClaretAndJew]

That’s ultimately what I believe. You don’t and I respect that.

If we remain, which I think will be the outcome.

We can review this in ten years time if .i am still breathing.

How would it legally be enforceable, country by country, to create an "EU Army"?

There would have to be years and years of negotiations, justifications, financial understanding etc.

I just can't see how it could logically be conceived.

[Lowbankclaret]

I mean by the way of adverts and leaflets, nor by public interest.

[KateR]

How would it legally be enforceable, country by country, to create an "EU Army"?

There would have to be years and years of negotiations, justifications, financial understanding etc.

I just can't see how it could logically be conceived.

surely you work out a budget, for numerous years in terms of what it will take to get to the point of actually having an EU army, plus back up plans defining who provides what sum to the formation of the budget as a percentage. Present it in bite size chunks, 2016 through to 2019, then 2020 to 2022 and 2022 t0 2025 with the aim to have the EU Army ready by 2025. The budget defines what they will do to get to the end game bit by bit, cooperation/security/technology etc.

I personally can see advantages to having one budget versus 27, synergies can be achieved, some countries would see much more modern deterrents in the form of ships/airplanes etc than they have now and would have in 10 years time.

While I see the advantages I can also see someone like Estonia thinking, ok I save money, we have an army/navy etc. We get threatened and in the extreme if we were invaded can I trust the EU to protect me the same as I would try to protect myself, this is where it gets tricky and involves a lot of trust in the other 26 members.

From what I have seen it appears 25 have signed up to budgets to move forward in some areas already, obviously not in the actual formation of an army all in the same uniform with the same arms available, but it certainly smells like the long term aim of the EU to me.

NOTE: I am not saying it is a good or bad thing either way

[ClaretAndJew]

surely you work out a budget, for numerous years in terms of what it will take to get to the point of actually having an EU army, plus back up plans defining who provides what sum to the formation of the budget as a percentage. Present it in bite size chunks, 2016 through to 2019, then 2020 to 2022 and 2022 t0 2025 with the aim to have the EU Army ready by 2025. The budget defines what they will do to get to the end game bit by bit, cooperation/security/technology etc.

I personally can see advantages to having one budget versus 27, synergies can be achieved, some countries would see much more modern deterrents in the for of ships/airplanes etc than they have now and would have in 10 years time.

While I see the advantages I can also see someone like Estonia thinking, ok I save money, we have an army/navy etc. We get threatened and in the extreme if we were invaded can I trust the EU to protect me the same as I would try to protect myself, this is where it gets tricky and involves a lot of trust in the other 26 members.

From what I have seen it appears 25 have signed up to budgets to move forward in some areas already, obviously not in the actual formation of an army all in the same uniform with the same arms available, but it certainly smells like the long term aim of the EU to me.

With this though I imagine there comes some sort of legal responsibility to act when allies etc are in danger? That can only be a good thing, can't it?

[TVC15]

Can I ask, did you live through the AIDS campaigns on TV and leaflets though the door.

It got more attention than zbrexit , that’s for sure.

Yes I did and at no point did anyone with half a brain say what you said - either about AIDS or mad cow disease.
Now stop embarrassing yourself.

[taio]

With this though I imagine there comes some sort of legal responsibility to act when allies etc are in danger? That can only be a good thing, can't it?

Like NATO.

[KateR]

With this though I imagine there comes some sort of legal responsibility to act when allies etc are in danger? That can only be a good thing, can't it?

I agree. However countries can change there mind or not agree with a single country as to the actual reality of a threat as a group, it seems to me very much like NATO, am of the thought that the Idea is good but the actual practicalities of it might be different. Would this EU "army" with it's own troops/equipment mean that they reduce commitments to NATO for example, how much appetite do some countries with small military budgets in terms of per capita want to see that raise, I can see the ones with the largest budgets looking to reduce since it's a joint obligation.

In the end run it seems to me it is more a drive to centralize and have the United States of Europe reducing individual countries contributions to there home nation, not sure that appeals to the majority but it is moving slowly, eventually your either in or out, not sure in 5/10 years that would work for say 2 nations out of this agreement. However like many things countries do opt out of some things and I really don't care right now if they do or don't, feel more important things need resolving at home than this issue.

[ClaretAndJew]

I agree. However countries can change there mind or not agree with a single country as to the actual reality of a threat as a group, it seems to me very much like NATO, am of the thought that the Idea is good but the actual practicalities of it might be different. Would this EU "army" with it's own troops/equipment mean that they reduce commitments to NATO for example, how much appetite do some countries with small military budgets in terms of per capita want to see that raise, I can see the ones with the largest budgets looking to reduce since it's a joint obligation.

In the end run it seems to me it is more a drive to centralize and have the United States of Europe reducing individual countries contributions to there home nation, not sure that appeals to the majority but it is moving slowly, eventually your either in or out, not sure in 5/10 years that would work for say 2 nations out of this agreement. However like many things countries do opt out of some things and I really don't care right now if they do or don't, feel more important things need resolving at home than this issue.

Correct.

But would you agree that most of Europe share the same values in terms of what would be justifiable in terms of going to war?

Does war really happen like it did?

I'm not really sure we're ever going to see another country v country war again.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm astonished that anyone thinks there is going to be an EU Army.

I'm even more astonished that they think such an EU Army (if ever created) would be independent of NATO.

Whether people like it or not, we are part of Europe and European defence is in our best interests.

Our enemies are NOT EU countries.

[Devils_Advocate]

Field Marshall Herr Bercow has a nice ring to it

[KateR]

Correct.

But would you agree that most of Europe share the same values in terms of what would be justifiable in terms of going to war?

Does war really happen like it did?

I'm not really sure we're ever going to see another country v country war again.

I would agree in principal yes, however Russia in the Ukraine is a worry and one which may be amplified in the former soviet states.

I really hope there is never a war again but even in the Brexit discussions so many people talking about the GFA and changing something like a border would result in bloodshed. A war/skirmish whatever it something I hope never happens, losing parents or children to war regardless of how few is devastating. I suppose the bigger question will be is this so called EU army only to protect EU countries and can not be used in other places/countries such as Africa/ME where there will definitely be skirmishes, wars, will they be used for protecting EU countries sending tankers round the Red Sea/Gulf for example

[KateR]

Field Marshall Herr Bercow has a nice ring to it

well he would ensure they never did anything wouldn't he!!

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul.

There are countries with a customs union with the EU that are most definitely not in the EU.

If you are not going to mention that when you post, then you are basically lying.

And yes, I'm well aware that we can't make trade deals. But as my point was the better ones don't exist, I don't see that as a problem.

In short, CU is Brexit and would satisfy the referenfum result and the majority could be happy with that.

Hi Lancs, I've already posted details, earlier on this thread, that supports the position I expressed that if the UK remains in a customs union with the EU the opportunity for UK to enter into new FTA with other countries is limited. I believed this was "accepted knowledge" of most authorities, not just now, but also in the period leading up to the referendum.

I'm ok with you having a different opinion. Please note that differences of opinion, even if there are facts that back up that opinion, does not necessarily and logically lead to the conclusion that another person is being dishonest or otherwise denying "the truth."

I know "excitement" is heightened, both on this mb and elsewhere, given current events. I'd like to play my small part in calming things down a little.

I know this is "social" media. I'll leave it at that and let you make your own decision about the most appropriate response.

[BennyD]

I can guarantee every single Brexit MEP will vote against the deal in its current form (which is ironic). And it’s a hit rich to be wondering why our system on democracy can’t be more like the EUs at this stage!

Those that have ‘frustrated Brexit’ so far have done so to stop no deal. Many have and will vote for a deal, but I believe you know that.

Utter bolloxcs. How can you give that guarantee? In that case there would be 0 votes for it, and that won’t be the case; if it was Bercow would have allowed the vote.

Remain MPs are frustrating the exit even now there is a deal on the table. By voting for it, there is no need for a No Deal scenario. The ERG will never get that because there will be too many voting against it if/when the time comes. NO Deal was simply a means to ensure the EU renegotiated the deal, and they did despite the fact the banged on about it being non-negotiable.

[BennyD]

Correct.

But would you agree that most of Europe share the same values in terms of what would be justifiable in terms of going to war?

Does war really happen like it did?

I'm not really sure we're ever going to see another country v country war again.

Turkey v Syria?
Any Arab country v Israel?

[ClaretAndJew]

Turkey v Syria?
Any Arab country v Israel?

I stand corrected.

[BennyD]

Like NATO.

Ah yes that long standing and successful organisation that France was a member of, but wouldn’t give troops to. As soon as the EU army reared it’s ugly head there they were, pledging troops before anyone else said yes. Cheese eating surrender pigs.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I'm astonished that anyone thinks there is going to be an EU Army.

I'm even more astonished that they think such an EU Army (if ever created) would be independent of NATO.

Whether people like it or not, we are part of Europe and European defence is in our best interests.

Our enemies are NOT EU countries.

Evening Lancs.

I’m not too sure where to go with this one:

1. Nobody thinks there WILL be an EU army, people think some of the EU top brass WANT an EU army. Irrefutable.
2. That then leads us to question why we would ever choose to be led by people with those aspirations that are so far out of tune with our own thinking (then add to that the Euro)
3. Our enemies may not be EU countries, but apart from the occasional exception, every enemy we have ever had has been a current EU country. Maintaining the integrity of our borders while remaining allies of these countries would seem to be the minimum we need to do.

[KateR]

Utter bolloxcs. How can you give that guarantee? In that case there would be 0 votes for it, and that won’t be the case; if it was Bercow would have allowed the vote.

Remain MPs are frustrating the exit even now there is a deal on the table. By voting for it, there is no need for a No Deal scenario. The ERG will never get that because there will be too many voting against it if/when the time comes. NO Deal was simply a means to ensure the EU renegotiated the deal, and they did despite the fact the banged on about it being non-negotiable.

Martin was guaranteeing the vote against by MEP's not MP's I believe, I would have to say he is probably right, they would seem to be the only one's who would be voting against the deal in the EU parliament but he knew what I meant before so the point is pretty much a mute point regarding the EU solidarity in terms of what is acceptable as a deal to them. Just very important that 300+ MP's in parliament want to scrutinize the deal and then the next steps will be to tell the government here are the XXX number of amendments you need to get the EU to change and write in to the WA before we will look at the final deal which must have a multitude of changes in our favor before we will even consider voting on the next rendition.

This seems a longer running soap than Emmerdale, with more changes in allegiances and demands across the board

[martin_p]

Utter bolloxcs. How can you give that guarantee?

Because the Brexit Party is completely controlled the Farage and he hates the deal.