Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndyClaret]

I don't think he will walk every single step of way, we don't know what route he will be using yet, he's the only politician i can think of who is getting up off his backside & actually doing something, i understand nigels role will leading the march & also in a motivational sense as well, with the length of the journey & also meeting up in other towns via the journey, some sort of accommodation will also be required.

You just know that the lefties on here won't be happy unless he crawls all the way on all fours.

[Jakubclaret]

You just know that the lefties on here won't be happy unless he crawls all the way on all fours.

We shouldn't have to do this, our vote won, but we are getting bent over by the EU & being dry power bummed, some people claim brexit was undeliverable brexit isn't & never has been undeliverable the will to implement brexit has been the only undeliverable part.

[Lancasterclaret]

He'll be crawling on all fours after the first five miles.

I do a fair bit of walking, and I'm younger than Farage, and a hell of a lot fitter. Walking that distance is no joke and needs proper training and planning.

Guess what Nigel is really good at? - saying stuff to make it sound easy

Guess what Nigel is really bad at? - planning and implementation of said stuff

[dsr]

I wasn’t trying to back up nil d’s post, but to refute yours.

You knew that, though, didn’t you?

I didn't, actually. The link you posted was in respect of India and its link with trade deals and free movement; I thought that was relevant to nil-d's post about India, trade deals and free movement. If you weren't referring to that, then why post it in a post about Japan?

[aggi]

Hmm, I've just looked at the route for this march. https://www.marchtoleave.com/route" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems to come up about 70 miles short of the declared distance with lots of parts where they stop in one place and start up the next day 20 miles down the road ...

I think it may end up something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh1DAKuiRAc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

We shouldn't have to do this, our vote won, but we are getting bent over by the EU & being dry power bummed, some people claim brexit was undeliverable brexit isn't & never has been undeliverable the will to implement brexit has been the only undeliverable part.

I know the leave campaign promised that leaving the EU would be simple and easy, and that we "hold all the cards" - but did you really think that disentangling forty years of integration would be so straightforward? And when we are the ones leaving, how is it wrong for the EU to prioritise the needs of remaining members over our own? The EU isn't shafting us. They're just not treating us as special as we were told they would during the referendum.

[RingoMcCartney]

Remainers 2016 - "It's a lie that EU rules, regulation and red tape have held british business back. All that garbage about straight bananas and aligning and conforming to these mythical directives handed down by excessive EU bureaucracy , are just lies perpetuated by the likes of Garage, eagerly swallowed by gullible, easily lead, xenophobic knuckle draggers"

Remoaners 2019 - "did you really think that disentangling forty years of integration would be so straightforward?"

[dsr]

I know the leave campaign promised that leaving the EU would be simple and easy, and that we "hold all the cards" - but did you really think that disentangling forty years of integration would be so straightforward? And when we are the ones leaving, how is it wrong for the EU to prioritise the needs of remaining members over our own? The EU isn't shafting us. They're just not treating us as special as we were told they would during the referendum.

The EU is entitled to say that they do not want the benefits of mutual free trade with the UK unless the UK pays an impossibly high price. Their electorates might not like it, but the EU runs as if it doesn't need an electorate - all the mainstream parties are pro-EU at any price. We will find out in May how well the nationalist parties, with all their faults, do. Quite well, I suspect.

But where our politicians are missing the point is that if the EU demands an impossibly high price for free trade, we don't have to pay it. It would be cheaper to pay (and collect) the tariffs.

[aggi]

Remainers 2016 - "It's a lie that EU rules, regulation and red tape have held british business back. All that garbage about straight bananas and aligning and conforming to these mythical directives handed down by excessive EU bureaucracy , are just lies perpetuated by the likes of Garage, eagerly swallowed by gullible, easily lead, xenophobic knuckle draggers"

Remoaners 2019 - "did you really think that disentangling forty years of integration would be so straightforward?"

You're missing the link where the forty years of integration have held british businesses back. I assume you have loads of examples.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ringo, its (shock! Horror!) slightly more complicated than that!

[Lancasterclaret]

https://www.marchtoleave.com/route" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or as its trending on twitter

#gammonballrun

[martin_p]

You asked a question. I answered it, and what is becoming an increasingly common habit with Remoaners. You don't like that answer and either claim your question is being answered or a whole plethora of falsehoods.

To paraphrase Fleetwood mac.

"Don't ask me what I think of you. I might give you answers you don't want me to."

Here's my answer.

Brexiteers ( tory and labour) that voted it down did so because they see it as brexit in name only. Given they stood on a manifesto that pledged to leave the European Union . Voted to trigger article 50 and enshrine leaving the EU on March 29th into law. They are, in my view being consistent and honourable.

Remoaner ( tory and labour) that voted it down, were being opportunistic and doing what they've down throughout the negotiations. Going back on the manifesto pledges on which they were elected. And despite the vast majority of MPs ( tory and labour) voting to trigger article 50, they're clearly wanting to thwart, undermine and in most cases stop the uk ever leaving the EU. They are in my view duplicitous, dishonourable and helping to ferment a deep, long term, even permanent, mistrust of politicians, parliament and democracy itself.

Like it or lump it.

So Wrongo, given you’re unhappy that the ‘ceaseless remoaners’ voted against May’s deal would you have preferred them to have voted for it? You don't seem to be able to answer this simple question, a simple yes/no answer will do thanks.

[Jakubclaret]

I know the leave campaign promised that leaving the EU would be simple and easy, and that we "hold all the cards" - but did you really think that disentangling forty years of integration would be so straightforward? And when we are the ones leaving, how is it wrong for the EU to prioritise the needs of remaining members over our own? The EU isn't shafting us. They're just not treating us as special as we were told they would during the referendum.

Good posts & in some ways you're right, disentangling was a excellent choice word, because tangles only occur when something is in a mess!

[Jakubclaret]

That’s very astute of you Jakub.

I didn't reply to your earlier quote as i sensed it was a loaded question "will he carry on marching" as i guessed your preferred ideal final destination would be a few yards from the cliffs of dover well just beyond.

[Bordeauxclaret]

How very cynical of you.

[Lancasterclaret]

Pretty sure Farage walking off the cliffs of Dover as a Brexit metaphor has been done already Jakub.

[aggi]

On the trade deals and free movement of people, I assume Turkey were just taking the **** back when this came out:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... m-movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Pretty sure Farage walking off the cliffs of Dover as a Brexit metaphor has been done already Jakub.

Remember when the daily Express used a literal cliff edge for their front page?

[Jakubclaret]

How very cynical of you.

Your mob are very generous with the comedy, i thought I'd return the favour.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Your mob are very generous with the comedy, i thought I'd return the favour.

Ok.

[AndrewJB]

Remainers 2016 - "It's a lie that EU rules, regulation and red tape have held british business back. All that garbage about straight bananas and aligning and conforming to these mythical directives handed down by excessive EU bureaucracy , are just lies perpetuated by the likes of Garage, eagerly swallowed by gullible, easily lead, xenophobic knuckle draggers"

Remoaners 2019 - "did you really think that disentangling forty years of integration would be so straightforward?"

I think the vast majority of the integration (sharing of police data for example) has been very positive. I'm open to persuasion though, so which of the EU regulations or "red tape" have held back British business?

[AndrewJB]

The EU is entitled to say that they do not want the benefits of mutual free trade with the UK unless the UK pays an impossibly high price. Their electorates might not like it, but the EU runs as if it doesn't need an electorate - all the mainstream parties are pro-EU at any price. We will find out in May how well the nationalist parties, with all their faults, do. Quite well, I suspect.

But where our politicians are missing the point is that if the EU demands an impossibly high price for free trade, we don't have to pay it. It would be cheaper to pay (and collect) the tariffs.

The trade deal talks haven't even started yet, but I think we can be fairly sure that the dispute mechanism will involve the ECJ as final arbiter, that we'll have to follow EU standards, and that there'll be some kind of payment for access. Probably similar to how things are now, except we participate in setting standards and in staffing the ECJ.

[nil_desperandum]

On the trade deals and free movement of people, I assume Turkey were just taking the **** back when this came out:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... m-movement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep. There's loads of this type of stuff out there on the internet, and I suspect it's one of the reasons why Fox has made little progress on trade deals -because what most countries want in negotiations will breach his "red lines".
I didn't bother engaging further with dsr on this though because history suggests that no matter how much evidence I unearth that supports my case, he'll find one article somewhere that puts a different slant on it.
It takes us back to the ongoing monotonous evidence versus proof argument that Ringo continually persists with.
All the evidence currently is that countries are looking for freedom of movement as an integral part of free trade deals, but there's no point keep pursuing this since the more fanatical "leavers" won't believe it, - until it actually happens.

[nil_desperandum]

May sees brexit as a "damage limitation exercise".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politi ... ys-ex-aide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

Yep. There's loads of this type of stuff out there on the internet, and I suspect it's one of the reasons why Fox has made little progress on trade deals -because what most countries want in negotiations will breach his "red lines".
I didn't bother engaging further with dsr on this though because history suggests that no matter how much evidence I unearth that supports my case, he'll find one article somewhere that puts a different slant on it.
It takes us back to the ongoing monotonous evidence versus proof argument that Ringo continually persists with.
All the evidence currently is that countries are looking for freedom of movement as an integral part of free trade deals, but there's no point keep pursuing this since the more fanatical "leavers" won't believe it, - until it actually happens.

It was opinion as opposed to conjecture. But nice try!

[RingoMcCartney]

I think the vast majority of the integration (sharing of police data for example) has been very positive. I'm open to persuasion though, so which of the EU regulations or "red tape" have held back British business?

For years small business owners have complained about the relentless, burdensome and onerous rules and regulations that emanate from the EU. Their main complaint is the one size fits all nature of them and the idea that it's relatively easy for a multinational or large PLCs to comply with the demands. Given they have the resources and facilties economies of scale to be able to cope. While they find it a continual struggle, to meet, as they see it, unnecessary, beaurcratic inconvenience.

[RingoMcCartney]

You're missing the link where the forty years of integration have held british businesses back. I assume you have loads of examples.

See above.

[RingoMcCartney]

So Wrongo, given you’re unhappy that the ‘ceaseless remoaners’ voted against May’s deal would you have preferred them to have voted for it? You don't seem to be able to answer this simple question, a simple yes/no answer will do thanks.

That's like somebody asking you - "marty, do you want the delorean torching or sent to the crusher?"


I would have preferred them to have not engineered a situation where May has kowtowed ( only too happy to oblige truth be known ) to their shameless lack of respect for the democratically expressed will of the people in the referendum result. Bringing about a situation where it looks increasingly like the brexit process will be delayed, and democracy will be sacrificed just to satisfy British europhiles insatiable demands for a federal European superstate.



However, the behaviour of the establishment and political class has been exposed for all too see. And the previous suspicion, that they are a self serving, mainly metropolitan , London, middle and upper class cabal . Hellbent on ensuring they protect and preserve their privilege and entitlement. Has , for millions of hard working, everyday folk , up and down the land, outside of their ivory towered bubble. Been finally, by their brazen actions, confirmed. Bringing closer the chances of a new party (they'll sneeringly label "populist" ) materialising that will give them the shock of their pompous, kept in cotton wool, lives. Every cloud.

In typical Remoaner style, you may not like my answer, buts all you're getting Marty.






Have a great weekend ladies.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I reckon Elizabeth might be posting tonight...

[Spijed]

Bringing closer the chances of a new party (they'll sneeringly label "populist" ) materialising that will give them the shock of their pompous, kept in cotton wool, lives. Every cloud.

considering over 16 million voted to remain they will be hard pressed to get enough votes to make that much difference anyway.

[aggi]

See above.

Not really evidence though is it. Just because companies complain about things it doesn't necessarily mean they're bad. Lots of companies complained about the onerous rules for asbestos handling for instance but that doesn't mean we should get rid of those rules.

But given it's been going on for years you must have loads of specific examples.

[aggi]

So Wrongo, given you’re unhappy that the ‘ceaseless remoaners’ voted against May’s deal would you have preferred them to have voted for it? You don't seem to be able to answer this simple question, a simple yes/no answer will do thanks.

He's putting some real effort into avoiding answering this one.

[martin_p]

He's putting some real effort into avoiding answering this one.

Yep. He’s tied himself in knots and doesn’t want to admit it.

[aggi]

Fortunately DFDS Liam Fox is here to sort it out, he clearly knows all about the WTO ...

[summitclaret]

The EU have now rejected to the word reasonable being used when an arbitrator judges whether either party is using best intentions to reach a trade deal. Crikey they are totally unreasonable if they won't agree that. We really are stuck in hotel California.

[Burnley Ace]

It was opinion as opposed to conjecture. But nice try!

No, it was about evidence and your inability to understand what it is and how it’s used. There’s 50 pages of evidence!

[Lancasterclaret]

Great explanation of benefits of Mays Deal here (from a Brexit backing columnists)

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/ ... 3786370059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

No, it was about evidence and your inability to understand what it is and how it’s used. There’s 50 pages of evidence!

No EVIDENCE just CONJECTURE.


Why?


Because we haven't left the EU yet. The process is incomplete. The withdrawal agreement hasn't even been drawn to a conclusion.

Therefore it's CONJECTURE. That brexit WILL have a negative impact on the uk.

CONJECTURE - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete evidence.

You cannot provide EVIDENCE for an event that has not happened yet. You can make predictions, assumptions and forecasts.

You can have have an opinion based on CONJECTURE but seeing that it's based on an incomplete process that's all you have. An OPINION

[RingoMcCartney]

No, it was about evidence and your inability to understand what it is and how it’s used. There’s 50 pages of evidence!

So another mistake in your ability to comprehend a straight forward question.

Your mistake was not comprehending a straight forward question.

Your mistake was relying on poor researching skills when you Googled and jumped on an incomplete piece of information and failed to go into finer detail.


My post 2359 simply asks the question - " did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum."

 Yes or no?

There was no caveat no small print specifying whether or not "they DIDN’T VOTE to make it an Act" or not. As you're desperately belatedly trying to say there was.

No.Just a straight forward . "did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum?

As the the BBCs Chris Mason, political correspondent confirmed.

"You don't need a doctorate in mathematics to work out this was a Commons majority of rather a lot.

With 650 MPs in the House of Commons, persuading 84%of them to vote the same way is quite something."

Look at what Chris Mason said here Burnley Not so Ace- 

"MPs have OVERWHELMINGLY backed plans for a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union.

MPs voted by 544 to 53 (nearly all SNP) in favour of the motion"


That answers my very simple and straight forward question. -

" did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I asked that question, you said "no". 

But in the post I quote above, you utterly contradict yourself and make the admission, for all to see that , and I quote, ". They voted AFTER THE FIRST DEBATE ,"

Its there in black and white! In true shooting yourself in the foot , Burnley not so Ace, style. You're subconsciously admitting and simultaneously proving you were wrong.

Forget your unpunctual provisos . Forget your clinging, too late to the party to help you save face, stipulations.

The vast majority of labour MPs did, indeed, vote to have an EU referendum.

You were completely and utterly wrong. In exactly the same way as you were wrong in claiming you understood what evidence actually was. And that you had any

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm not going round in circles with either you or any other of the democracy hating 3rd rate Dominic Grieves that populate this message board.


You're boring.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm going to miss this level of debate when we are killing each other for fresh vegetables.

[martin_p]

You asked a question. I answered it, and what is becoming an increasingly common habit with Remoaners. You don't like that answer and either claim your question is being answered or a whole plethora of falsehoods.

To paraphrase Fleetwood mac.

"Don't ask me what I think of you. I might give you answers you don't want me to."

Here's my answer.

Brexiteers ( tory and labour) that voted it down did so because they see it as brexit in name only. Given they stood on a manifesto that pledged to leave the European Union . Voted to trigger article 50 and enshrine leaving the EU on March 29th into law. They are, in my view being consistent and honourable.

Remoaner ( tory and labour) that voted it down, were being opportunistic and doing what they've down throughout the negotiations. Going back on the manifesto pledges on which they were elected. And despite the vast majority of MPs ( tory and labour) voting to trigger article 50, they're clearly wanting to thwart, undermine and in most cases stop the uk ever leaving the EU. They are in my view duplicitous, dishonourable and helping to ferment a deep, long term, even permanent, mistrust of politicians, parliament and democracy itself.

Like it or lump it.

So Wrongo, given you’re unhappy that the ‘ceaseless remoaners’ voted against May’s deal would you have preferred them to have voted for it? You don't seem to be able to answer this simple question, a simple yes/no answer will do thanks.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I'm not going round in circles with either you or any other of the democracy hating 3rd rate Dominic Grieves that populate this message board.


You're boring.

He says on page 55.

[RingoMcCartney]

So Wrongo, given you’re unhappy that the ‘ceaseless remoaners’ voted against May’s deal would you have preferred them to have voted for it? You don't seem to be able to answer this simple question, a simple yes/no answer will do thanks.

Yes.

They should've voted for it while the ERG should have voted against it. This should have been coordinated. It would then given our negotiating team the argument to take back to Brussels that, "we're getting closer in parliament, look at the way the votes are going. Agree to an end date to the back stop and we can get this through Parliament"

But no. The cabal of anti democratic usurpers like the duplicitous Dominic Grieve are working day and night, having secondary meetings with the other side. This completely undermines our negotiating position. And a coordinated vote to send a message was never ever going to happen while vermin like Grieve infest parliament.

FOR most of his career, Dominic Grieve has enthused about democratic “rules-based” systems, insisting that legal form, minted by elected authorities under the Crown and cobwebbed  by time, was essential for political stability.

Over the two decades since he became an MP in 1997, this pukka, posh-suited, punctilious figure has been a pedantic regular in House of Commons debates.

He would crook one of his little fingers at an angle, give his neck muscles a creaky tweak and insist, with a shot of the cuffs and a shuffle of minimal notes, that ministers and officials must always comply with statute and precedent and time-honoured procedure.

When giving these lectures — they were seldom short — he would touch the rim of his glasses, give a little mallard-style cough and allow a patronising smile to inhabit his broadening bill.

He would explain that raw political instinct and passion, of the sort voiced by the Nigel Farages and Jeremy Corbyns of this world,  were not by themselves good enough in politics. He looked down on such things.

With respect,” he would say — and it is one of the older truths of Westminster that when people say “with respect” they mean the sneery opposite — “with respect, we have to do things according to the rules, for that is the way this Parliament works and those are the sort of people we are.”

I paraphrase him but that was very much Grieve’s position. He was a creature of propriety.

He could cite legal sub-section and addendum and annex and codicil that proved, we were told, the unarguable merits of his position.

With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy  is that he likes foreigners  a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

Indignant. You could even say he was ag-Grieved. And so he touched the rims of his glasses, did some ducky quacking and set to work to block Brexit.

The trouble, as has often been pointed out to him, was that the democratic vote had gone against him.

At first he said, through gritted teeth (if ducks have teeth), that he would respect the result of the referendum.

In 2017 he was re-elected as MP for prosperous Beaconsfield, Bucks,  on a Tory manifesto which said exactly that.

Every Tory MP promised to get us out of the customs union and single market.

Labour MPs also promised to honour the referendum result. What lying bastards these people are. When the new Government started to get into political difficulties, the once-principled Grieve saw his chance. He stopped saying he would respect the referendum result. He wanted us to stay in the customs union. He wanted a second referendum.


Most startling of all, he plotted to bypass all those rules and time-honoured procedures he used to say were so vital for our political safety.

After a secret meeting with the appallingly biased John Bercow, Grieve got that anti-Brexit Commons Speaker to chuck out centuries of accepted debating rules.

Propriety was smashed like plates at a Greek wedding. Legal advice was ignored.

This former Attorney General’s campaign against Brexit, which will next week see him and a minority of MPs attempt to remove law-making from the elected Government, took on a wild, crazed aspect.


With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy  is that he likes foreigners  a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

All along, it seems, his loyalties were not to a rules-based system but to the blue flag of a European Union that is now, increasingly, our rival and our deadly threat.




Final answer.

[RingoMcCartney]

Enjoy the weekend ladies.

[Lancasterclaret]

Nice of bit casual racism and a copied and pasted hatchet job there to end it.

Have a good one Ringo!

[martin_p]

Yes.

They should've voted for it while the ERG should have voted against it. This should have been coordinated. It would then given our negotiating team the argument to take back to Brussels that, "we're getting closer in parliament, look at the way the votes are going. Agree to an end date to the back stop and we can get this through Parliament"

But no. The cabal of anti democratic usurpers like the duplicitous Dominic Grieve are working day and night, having secondary meetings with the other side. This completely undermines our negotiating position. And a coordinated vote to send a message was never ever going to happen while vermin like Grieve infest parliament.

FOR most of his career, Dominic Grieve has enthused about democratic “rules-based” systems, insisting that legal form, minted by elected authorities under the Crown and cobwebbed  by time, was essential for political stability.

Over the two decades since he became an MP in 1997, this pukka, posh-suited, punctilious figure has been a pedantic regular in House of Commons debates.

He would crook one of his little fingers at an angle, give his neck muscles a creaky tweak and insist, with a shot of the cuffs and a shuffle of minimal notes, that ministers and officials must always comply with statute and precedent and time-honoured procedure.

When giving these lectures — they were seldom short — he would touch the rim of his glasses, give a little mallard-style cough and allow a patronising smile to inhabit his broadening bill.

He would explain that raw political instinct and passion, of the sort voiced by the Nigel Farages and Jeremy Corbyns of this world,  were not by themselves good enough in politics. He looked down on such things.

With respect,” he would say — and it is one of the older truths of Westminster that when people say “with respect” they mean the sneery opposite — “with respect, we have to do things according to the rules, for that is the way this Parliament works and those are the sort of people we are.”

I paraphrase him but that was very much Grieve’s position. He was a creature of propriety.

He could cite legal sub-section and addendum and annex and codicil that proved, we were told, the unarguable merits of his position.

With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy  is that he likes foreigners  a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

Indignant. You could even say he was ag-Grieved. And so he touched the rims of his glasses, did some ducky quacking and set to work to block Brexit.

The trouble, as has often been pointed out to him, was that the democratic vote had gone against him.

At first he said, through gritted teeth (if ducks have teeth), that he would respect the result of the referendum.

In 2017 he was re-elected as MP for prosperous Beaconsfield, Bucks,  on a Tory manifesto which said exactly that.

Every Tory MP promised to get us out of the customs union and single market.

Labour MPs also promised to honour the referendum result. What lying bastards these people are. When the new Government started to get into political difficulties, the once-principled Grieve saw his chance. He stopped saying he would respect the referendum result. He wanted us to stay in the customs union. He wanted a second referendum.


Most startling of all, he plotted to bypass all those rules and time-honoured procedures he used to say were so vital for our political safety.

After a secret meeting with the appallingly biased John Bercow, Grieve got that anti-Brexit Commons Speaker to chuck out centuries of accepted debating rules.

Propriety was smashed like plates at a Greek wedding. Legal advice was ignored.

This former Attorney General’s campaign against Brexit, which will next week see him and a minority of MPs attempt to remove law-making from the elected Government, took on a wild, crazed aspect.


With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy  is that he likes foreigners  a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

All along, it seems, his loyalties were not to a rules-based system but to the blue flag of a European Union that is now, increasingly, our rival and our deadly threat.




Final answer.

But you do accept that given there is ‘a massive cross party consensus for remain’ if all the ‘ceaseless remoaners’ had voted for May’s deal you’ve had got ‘Brexit in name only’.

[martin_p]

Yes.

They should've voted for it while the ERG should have voted against it. This should have been coordinated. It would then given our negotiating team the argument to take back to Brussels that, "we're getting closer in parliament, look at the way the votes are going. Agree to an end date to the back stop and we can get this through Parliament"

But no. The cabal of anti democratic usurpers like the duplicitous Dominic Grieve are working day and night, having secondary meetings with the other side. This completely undermines our negotiating position. And a coordinated vote to send a message was never ever going to happen while vermin like Grieve infest parliament.

FOR most of his career, Dominic Grieve has enthused about democratic “rules-based” systems, insisting that legal form, minted by elected authorities under the Crown and cobwebbed  by time, was essential for political stability.

Over the two decades since he became an MP in 1997, this pukka, posh-suited, punctilious figure has been a pedantic regular in House of Commons debates.

He would crook one of his little fingers at an angle, give his neck muscles a creaky tweak and insist, with a shot of the cuffs and a shuffle of minimal notes, that ministers and officials must always comply with statute and precedent and time-honoured procedure.

When giving these lectures — they were seldom short — he would touch the rim of his glasses, give a little mallard-style cough and allow a patronising smile to inhabit his broadening bill.

He would explain that raw political instinct and passion, of the sort voiced by the Nigel Farages and Jeremy Corbyns of this world,  were not by themselves good enough in politics. He looked down on such things.

With respect,” he would say — and it is one of the older truths of Westminster that when people say “with respect” they mean the sneery opposite — “with respect, we have to do things according to the rules, for that is the way this Parliament works and those are the sort of people we are.”

I paraphrase him but that was very much Grieve’s position. He was a creature of propriety.

He could cite legal sub-section and addendum and annex and codicil that proved, we were told, the unarguable merits of his position.

With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy  is that he likes foreigners  a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

Indignant. You could even say he was ag-Grieved. And so he touched the rims of his glasses, did some ducky quacking and set to work to block Brexit.

The trouble, as has often been pointed out to him, was that the democratic vote had gone against him.

At first he said, through gritted teeth (if ducks have teeth), that he would respect the result of the referendum.

In 2017 he was re-elected as MP for prosperous Beaconsfield, Bucks,  on a Tory manifesto which said exactly that.

Every Tory MP promised to get us out of the customs union and single market.

Labour MPs also promised to honour the referendum result. What lying bastards these people are. When the new Government started to get into political difficulties, the once-principled Grieve saw his chance. He stopped saying he would respect the referendum result. He wanted us to stay in the customs union. He wanted a second referendum.


Most startling of all, he plotted to bypass all those rules and time-honoured procedures he used to say were so vital for our political safety.

After a secret meeting with the appallingly biased John Bercow, Grieve got that anti-Brexit Commons Speaker to chuck out centuries of accepted debating rules.

Propriety was smashed like plates at a Greek wedding. Legal advice was ignored.

This former Attorney General’s campaign against Brexit, which will next week see him and a minority of MPs attempt to remove law-making from the elected Government, took on a wild, crazed aspect.


With Monsieur half-French Grieve, the ancient principles of English law were our majesty. Our mainstay!

Plenty of us clocked that Grieve was a bit of a prune, an oddball, the fogeyish son of privilege. His dad Percy, wouldn’t you know it, had also been a Tory MP of the gusset-and-sock-suspenders old school.

Percy once worked as a liaison officer for French wartime hero Charles de Gaulle, who hated the British (even though Churchill gave him shelter in London when the Germans occupied France). It was said that Old Man Grieve agreed with de Gaulle.

“The trouble with Percy  is that he likes foreigners  a great deal better than his own people,” concluded an acquaintance.

Dominic, in childhood, worshipped his father and once won a school oratory contest by making an admiring speech about de Gaulle.

Does “Dominique”, too, like continentals better than his fellow countrymen? It sure looks that way. In June 2016, in one of the greatest thumpings our elite was ever given by the people, we voted to leave the EU. Dominic Grieve, newly decorated with France’s Legion d’honneur for his political work, was horrified.

All along, it seems, his loyalties were not to a rules-based system but to the blue flag of a European Union that is now, increasingly, our rival and our deadly threat.




Final answer.

By the way, you really should stop trying to pass other people’s words off as your own.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8249210/d ... tands-for/

[aggi]

Reading Ringo's posts is like reading a Sun editorial

(Edit: too slow)

[ClaretAndJew]

That’s hilarious.