Forum menu
I was half joking but anyway
Follow parliamentary process - it's really not too much to ask......
You would think not. So why have so many smart people rejected that idea? Apparently they reckon it IS too much to ask ....
So which areas of new legislation will be passed secondary v primary? The bits that are agitating you....
So Liberal . - the group who want to use every means to divert the process and are happy to say stuff the democratic process. It's becoming clearer now. The circle is squared.
So which areas of new legislation will be passed secondary v primary? The bits that are agitating you....
Still missing the point I see......
As for the smart people? You mean the Tory Eurosceptucs..
I care about the process being fair & with oversight - at the moment it looks. like being anything but.
Liberal? Yes, because the Tories have a nasty hard right & Labour & equally nasty hard left.
As for derailing the democratic process? Unsure of that - how exactly is Cable threatening that. A coup??
You could try the HOL EU ctte for starters - they have listened to lots of opinions and I have already posted their conclusions - yes too much to ask for.....
Still missing the point I see......
No this lies at the heart of the matter.
Careful with Uncle Vince - he still hadn't grasped the basic difference between membership of and access to the single market. Poor chap was still yaking on about leaving the single market on Marr.
citation required. or 'report post'. there's a special button for it and everything. what is this now? the third time?
Well the worst have of it has been reported and deleted, so how can tmh link to something that's been deleted ?
TJ I was very much pro the EU 15 years ago and 50/50 on whether we should join the euro when Brown decided not to. The Lisbon Treaty (which basically embodied the EU Constitution which the French voted down in their Referendum) has proven to be a huge negative when combined with the Eastern European expansion, catastrophe that has been the euro especially turning a blind eye to excessive borrowing, tragedy of migration mismanagement, Shengen disaster, appalling abuse of taxation and free trwde (Luxembourg and Ireland in particular) corruption/waste/fraud of EU itself.
I also respect the fact that it is equally democratic that someday there maybe another vote that may take us back in, as one took us in originally, as the last has taken us out.
This is what Remainers should focus on, becoming Rejoiners. If that's how we voted in the future I'd personally be dissapointed but would respect that result. Same as Scottish Indy Ref, my preferemce we remain a Union but respected the Scot's (once in a lifetime) right to choose
yes too much to ask for.....
Being patronising will neither win you my respect nor my admiration.
You just come across as condescending.
Rather sad - I thought you were more enlightened but now you're just coming across as being another Tory whose detached from society & reality. Caring little for the man in the street & being more interested in yourself.
Shame, as at times you've been a moderating voice.
Now your true colours (blue) appear to be showing.
Would you respect the result of a rejoin referendum if the campaign was a pack of lies? Is that good democracy? A competition to see how many people you can successfully lie to?
Stuck record time… you can operate in the Single Market but not be a member… so it is not beyond the wit of man to suggest pushing to stay in the Single Market to some extent, pay fees, obey the rules, but no longer be a member. A foolish option, that gives up "control" of your enlarged home market, but there you are. Some might consider this much worse than membership, but better than operating outside what is currently our big fat doorstep market place. Others might consider it treachery as we give up so much control without gaining much. Many noisy Leavers outside parliament pushing for this. Many people hoping to keep as close as possible to the EU also pushing for this. Perhaps the sensible comprise that few of us really want. Not a good outcome in my opinion, but hey, I've not heard a better one proposed yet. Not going to happen. Vince and Chukka both using it to find a path back to EU membership in a generation's time I suspect. Wouldn't bet against all opposition parties adopting it next year…grasped the basic difference between membership of and access to the single market. Poor chap was still yaking on about leaving the single market on Marr.
Sorry the truth hurts.
By you reckoning the Tories must also have a massive hol majority the upper chamber must be detached from society and reality.
It's becoming quite a crowd. Alternatively.....
Remoaners are making a bloody good efforts at giving us a test case mol
Kelvin of course you can which is why "leaving" is simply a convenient word for confusing people. Every day or at least nearly every day the news is full of our negotiations to "operate" (I prefer have access to but semantics) in the single market. Odd that vince can't grasp such an obvious point isn't it? Was he away too long?
You know what is required to operate in the Single Market … now look again at the negotiations and the bill you've been "discussing" and the leaks on migration … paying the fees the only thing [s]we're[/s] the government is really keeping on the table, and that is not nearly enough. So it's not going to happen. Vince and co pushing it so as to keep us closer aligned with EU to make a return more likely in future I suspect. It would need major shifts in what the government is doing, and could help bring UK & rEU positions closer together … so happy if Kier & co start pushing this line as well.
Of course it isn't outside a bespoke deal
We have known that for ages
Both sides start from incompatible positions - that is the UK and EU. Vince is starting from not understanding the key point, but hey.....
Remoaners are making a bloody good efforts at giving us a test case mol
Well telling the truth didn't do us much good last time did it?
(this post is overly cynical)
Strange that you oppose anyone that suggests the UK shifts position, if you think that. Both will need to shift, and [s]we[/s] the government will have to shift more than [s]them[/s] the governments of the 27 other countries, I suspect.Both sides start from incompatible positions - that is the UK and EU.
You understand the issues involved more than him? I wouldn't claim to, and would be suspicious of anyone who claimed they did.Vince is starting from not understanding the key point, but hey.....
Strange that you oppose anyone that suggests the UK shifts position,
Even stranger if that were true.
You understand the issues involved more than him?
In my sector 100%. Beyond that, who knows? But since he has the wrong starting point, things are looking promising so far....
Love your arrogance, and dismissal of a man with so much experience and knowledge.
Remembering you referring to May's "pinklines"… how and when do you see the shift in position on FoM and ECJ occurring? Alternatively, apart from on paying in long term, how else do you think the UK government can shift its position toward something the EU could also shift towards?
As an aside...
I read that Niggl Farridge thinks the idea that music can cross boundaries and borders and have international appeal is "airy-fairy nonsense"...
... as he searched through his one inch thoughts and decided it couldn't be done...
I need to know my stuff as it affects my business. Cable just has to make people believe his BS and vote for him. You decide which is likely to be better and why?
Who knows when either side will budge. We have seen compromises already. More to follow that's certain, When? That isn't.... We shall see.
In which areas can "we" shift? May's redlines aren't looking pink yet. Payments seem to be all she's personally preparing to concede on (and she never stood in front of any buses, so can). The "others" keep trying to close that down as well (leadership positioning no doubt).
IIRC she was a remainer. The leavers stood in front of buses I believe.
The positions have already softened but since [s]the EU won't negotiate on the core issue of trade[/s] we are still at stage one so too early for big changes yet
Why have you picked the one thing that hasn't changed?
By "stood in front of any buses" … I mean claim to stop "sending" money to the EU, and you know that full well, of course,
Had a quick search, the only bus I can find May stood in front of has a slogan solely in support of herself.
One thing that hasn't changed? You mean paying money into EU schemes? Because it's the biggest thing the government have left themselves room to move on (despite some ministers trying to box May in by claiming we'll pay nothing). ECJ and FoM redlines are getting harder, not softer.
How do you think the government could or should move their position… or are you waiting to agree with whatever the current Conservative leader decides to do?
I blame his wife's CD collection.I read that Niggl Farridge thinks the idea that music can cross boundaries and borders and have international appeal is "airy-fairy nonsense"
By "bus" … I mean claim to stop "sending" money to the EU, and you know that full well, of course,
No, I trusted what you wrote. Is that the wrong thing to do?
FOM - have said that many times. Unlinked both major parties, I am pro FoM. I have benefitted from it, so have my wife and one of the mini THMs, so why would I deny this to others? Plus it benefits the UK too. Win:win. Hardly a Tory message though. Odd that...
When, after we move to stage 2
So you're still hoping for her redline on FoM to change to pink? Keep EVERYTHING crossed for May to move on that. I'll personally toast both you and her if that happens.
The Committee you speak of THM....
Half of it are hard line Brexiteers...
Half are soft remainders....
All are Tory.
Ill take their opinion on how EU law should be incorporated into UK law with a bulldozer load of salt!
Fine you do that
The first name on the list of committee members is Lord Beith. What party, any idea? The second Labour.
What were you saying about bulldozers?
Which committee are you referring to?
So we are on the same page..
I thought you meant the Dept of Brexit..
You mean?
Edit: you mean the Lords - my bad. But, yes maybe not a bulldozer but certainly more than a shovels worth!
Bottom line: I wouldn't trust ANY minority's Gov who are giving the impression of trying to load the dice, then defend it -.particylarly when it's something of this importance..
I don't care how long it takes to run it through Parliament, but FFS it must be done RIGHT & FAIRLY. The current plan (?) has none of that about it for me..
Well if they allow FoM then they certainly might as well call the whole thing off, because for sure that's the dominant issue for the largest proportion of leave voters.
The DoB are not part of the HoL are they?
HOL Select Committee on the Constitution
It's their report that I have quoted the most recently. But since you disagree so violently with what they say, you might not want to google it. It's far too late to edit all the ^ anyway.
ertainly might as well call the whole thing off, because for sure that's the dominant issue for the largest proportion of leave voters
Leave voters or voters? 😉
Big Tony has changed his tune on FoM. Blowing with the wind.
So you're still hoping for her redline on FoM to change to pink? Keep EVERYTHING crossed for May to move on that.
Given her track record, losing all of the benefits of EU membership, and getting to pay to keep the thing that most leave voters disliked most wouldn't come as a huge surprise!
good article on Henry VIII clause:
[url= http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/11/30/rights-for-the-chop-how-a-henry-viii-clause-in-the-great-repeal-bill-will-undermine-democracy/ ]LSE[/url]
disagree so violentl
Democracy should not be subordinated for the sake of expediency.
I thought big tony was basically suggesting that we implement the restrictions on FoM that are already allowed (i.e. FoLabour) and pretend this is a big concession from the EU such that leaving is no longer required 🙂
I think this thread is a fine example in miniature, of the complete and total nause-up produced by the gormless 52% of the UK voting population.
Carry on...
Apologies for the Mail link, but I wasn't expecting this...
http://www.****/news/article-4869276/The-big-Brexit-immigration-myth-monumental-deception.html
MoS not DM, but still made the MOnline
Democracy should not be subordinated for the sake of expediency
Especially when the expediency is partly due to the series of unforced errors that the leavers and May have forced on us
Rich of Davis to warn of chaos, when he was the genius behind the early election U-turn to secure a mandate for the Tory Brexishambles 🙂
An editor will be getting a kicking for letting that one through
An interesting read in the DM, thanks igm: I've taken the liberty of cutting and pasting the whole thing here:
"The negotiations to sever our links with the EU have turned nasty – and far worse is to come. It is tragic to watch and see the humiliation of our country as the tasty fruits of the Brexit promise are replaced by the sour grapes of the cold outside world.
The relationship between Brexit Secretary David Davis and his EU counterpart, Michel Barnier, has become strained to breaking point over the ‘divorce bill’ that we will have to pay before we can even start to discuss a trade deal.
This was, I’m afraid, entirely predictable: as the clock ticks ever louder towards our departure, the harsh realities of Brexit can no longer be concealed by our increasingly overstretched Government.
This was strikingly illustrated by the leak last week of Ministers’ plans to crack down on immigration after Brexit. Free movement of labour would end immediately and all but the most highly skilled EU workers deterred from coming to this country.
I fear the very social fabric of our caring society, health services and swathes of the public sector which depend on immigrant support could be destroyed if this happens.
There have to be controls on immigration across Europe. Free movement is under question and we should join a discussion that could follow on from the German elections.
The Brexit process is being driven by a highly organised group of politicians and journalists who, aware of the fragility of our negotiating position, are desperate to hide the consequences from the public.
They hope that they will not realise how disastrous this process is going to be until the EU Withdrawal Bill – paving the way for our exit – has successfully cleared Parliament.
That was the intended purpose of the recent General Election – to secure a sufficient majority to allow Brexit to be pushed through before the electorate could get its hands on the decision.
Even though that part of the plan backfired spectacularly, I believe that this represents a calculated deception of the British people on a monumental scale.
The referendum result of 2016 was driven by frustration over the freeze in living standards since 2008. This fed the anger over immigration, which has always been a ‘low hanging fruit’ for politicians: they can blame it for the pressure on public services, overcrowded estates – igniting prejudices in the process. This Government promised, but failed to deliver, a massive cut in immigration to lower than 100,000 a year.
But now, thanks to the Home Office leak, we have details of how they intend to achieve after Brexit what they patently failed to achieve before it. Promising to end European immigration is a popular political promise with the pain deferred to the longer term. The consequences will be felt largely after we leave. The figures are clear and simple.
Last year, a quarter of a million Europeans came here while only 117,000 left – a net inward immigration of 133,000. However, 264,000 non-Europeans came while 88,000 left, resulting in a net immigration of 176,000. No one is better acquainted with the problems this entails than the Prime Minister, who had the responsibility to control our borders for six years as Home Secretary. No European law or court can interfere with our sovereign right to control our borders to non-EU nationals. So why has so little been done over the years?
The answer, of course, is that the consequences are of such damage to our economy and social services that it is better to gain electoral advantage from the promise rather than risk the inevitable backlash when it is put into effect.
The public services need immigration – for example the NHS is short of 30,000 nurses, with numbers of EU staff collapsing since last year.
The private sector’s reaction to the leak was equally clear. The stark fact, in warnings from company after company, is that there is no alternative supply of skilled labour from our own population. The British Hospitality Association says that three-quarters of waiting staff in the UK are EU nationals – and at least 60,000 new EU workers are needed every year to fill vacancies. No wonder they describe these proposals as ‘catastrophic’ for their industry. It would take a decade to train up enough British workers to fill the gaps. The respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s world education comparisons have indicated that education standards in the UK, measured every three years, have failed to progress and highlighted concerns about the shortage of teachers.
There is another reason why the Government is more attracted by the promise of cutting immigration than by the implementation.
INTERNATIONAL Trade Secretary Liam Fox is travelling the world seeking markets to replace those lost in Europe by Brexit. Courtesies will be extended to any British Cabinet Minister – but behind not very closed doors a much less comfortable message will be conveyed.
British universities are going to be restrained in attracting overseas students upon whom their financial viability depends. How is that going to be greeted, for example, in India, which sends some of their brightest to learn here – often raising the standards of our students in the process? There is a simple solution. Students should be excluded from the immigration figures.
The anti-immigration argument may satisfy the anxieties of a domestic audience concerned for their own welfare, but how will it go down in some of the poorest countries on Earth – which we hope will open their doors and trade with us for our goods, while we cream off their skilled people to bolster our living standards?
An interesting poll published recently reveals that there has been little change in public opinion about Brexit since the referendum. There is one exception: public confidence in our negotiators is low.
Immediately after the referendum I wrote in this newspaper that it was essential for Brexiteers to be put in charge of the negotiations. Already the indications are from No 10 that Mrs May would like to move Boris Johnson and Liam Fox. The public have realised the inadequacies of the messengers. It is only a matter of time before they realise that the problems lay in the message.
As the autumn of Mrs May’s premiership creeps in, we should learn from the courage and vision of Winston Churchill in the 1930s and Harold Macmillan in the 1950s. Both told a reluctant Conservative Party what it did not want to hear. Where is tomorrow’s Conservative leader who can articulate Britain’s essential self-interest in Europe?"
He's right of course. He'll be ad-homed to death here later today, but this is pretty much bang on.
Also:
"Free movement is under question and we should join a discussion that could follow on from the German elections."
I think the much-trailed 'big announcement' on the 21st will be concerned with just this.
What's newsworthy there?
(Apart from source)
What's newsworthy there?(Apart from source)
I think that the source of an article like that is very newsworthy.
[img] 
[/img]
Compare with the headline. Can't possibly have the Brexshitters hearing the truth and realising how badly the negotiations are going.
Ask yourself why the truth can't be spoken, follow the money. Who wins from Brexit. As the Mail article points out the damage will take time to become clear. If you keep the proles distracted for long enough those who want brexit get to make their millions.
Just like the collapse of the soviet union, there is a fortune to be made at the expense of the majority.
Where is this fortune to be made? I've got some cash sitting about and wouldn't mind a piece of the action (as a hedge, basically).
Where is this fortune to be made? I've got some cash sitting about and wouldn't mind a piece of the action (as a hedge, basically).
If you have the money, chaos always offers opportunities to make money. People losing jobs gives someone the opportunity to buy houses cheap through distressed sales. You can buy UK companies cheaper now if you aren't buying in sterling. Opportunities come with de regulation, look at how well the UK arms industry has been doing recently selling into the middle east. Sterling deval has made our weapons cheaper....
The master of self-awareness David Davis has warned MPs not to vote against the bill today as this would lead to 'a chaotic Brexit'
Surely not? As opposed to the highly organised, competent, professional and slick Brexit you're presently undertaking, which is all going just great?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, well if I've got to wait for a housing crash, followed by (hopefully) some sort of recovery that's hardly the get rich(er) quick scheme I was hoping for.
Look for companies that are unethical - low wage payers who can't wait for deregulation, pollutters, arms companies - that sort of thing
Importers of chlorine washed 'murican chicken?
Look for companies that are well prepared for Brexit already (many are) and avoid those run by remoaners who have yet to respond to what is in front of them.
Ironically, Brexshit may delay the correction in the housing market. BoE is stuck between higher inflation and low real wage growth and vulnerability of U.K. Households and Corporates - will they, won't they raise rates soon??
avoid those run by remoaners who have yet to respond to what is in front of them.
who are these remoaners? i mean, our organisation stands to take a large hit on admin of import/export, but we're getting prepared for the worst, as far as we can, while rather hoping that the best outcome is coming.
anyone who is actually capable of running a profitable business will be preparing for the potential shit show.
the government on the other hand, well, they don't have to turn a profit, do they?
i don't see much coverage of new customs sheds going up in dover...
teamhurtmore - Member
Look for companies that are well prepared for Brexit already (many are) and avoid those run by remoaners who have yet to respond to what is in front of them.
So avoid the NHS - they got a solution for their EU workforce yet or staffing shortages?
Nissan seem prepared they got their secret deal in early.
For others what are they preparing for?
Do a lot of export? Move to the EU
Get new staff?
Prepare to cut as much as possible to make up for trade barriers?
NHS worker here. Without EU staff we cannot staff our wards. Thats not moaning - thats a fact.
I expect a large part of my customer base to go bust over the next few years, but really depends on how CAP is removed.
avoid the NHS
Contrary to what is often quoted here, I am not aware that the NHS has been privatised yet. Are the shares traded privately mike?
Ony the juicy bits THM!
I wonder if it will go as well as water privatisantion...
https://www.ft.com/content/2beee56a-9616-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0
Perfect example of a business that needs [s]to pull it's socks up and get on with it[/s] clarity, plans and influence into the negotiations.
Does that make they crap?
Any time you feel like addressing how the NHS can cope going forward please chip in.
The same for most if not all - hence we need to get on with it; hence we need to delegate powers to ensure an efficient integration of EU laws into UK laws
Hey, it's all getting clear all of a sudden. Let's see if anybody choses to muddy the waters this afternoon in the village..,.
teamhurtmore - Member
The same for most if not all - hence we need to get on with it; hence we need to delegate powers to ensure an efficient integration of EU laws into UK laws
Efficient transfer is one word for it...
You also missed the massive bits where it appears to the rest of the world that the UK is negotiating badly and not getting anything sorted.
hence we need to delegate powers to ensure an efficient integration of EU laws into UK laws
No, we live in a parliamentary democracy and 48% of those who voted have an opinion. That you don't agree that they have a right to representation says something about you.
Personally i am more than a bit concerned that the election was not carried out in a fair manner, and that there should be real investigations into who funded who.
Hey, it's all getting clear all of a sudden
So you know what's going to happen to Ireland, how much Britain will pay to cover it share in EU debt, what 27 countries are prepared to agree to in terms of future relations. Do tell.
What I struggle to understand is why any of the EU laws that apply to the UK need to be scrutinised during the GRB. These are the laws we currently work to, and had we not chosen to Brexit, would continue to work to for the foreseeable. Sure there may be some (eg. regarding olive oil production or bananas!) which may not be relevant and can be simply dropped, but the rest can surely be adopted unchanged. If there is felt a need to amend or update them at a later date, then fine. We have a proven parliamentary system to do this. Nothing needs to change in the short term unless there are hidden agendas out there.
changes need to be made where EU bodies are referenced and/or used as final arbiters, such as the ECJ for instance.
the concern is that 'other' changes may get made, as you say, with some people having other agendas other than a straight forward copy/paste job.
Take a look at most UK acts, they aren't self contained, but refer to amendments, to other acts, various standards. Some will look at Euro standards and ECJ rulings etc.
But, let the house burn while worrying about the paperwork. Screw the NHS, education, industry, just as long as May can get her snoopers charter in and get rid of the immigrants.
?Ireland? Anyone come up with a solution yet that does not involve a hard border or fairy dust?
We give the republic shed loads of money to take the North back. Any unionists who aren't happy we can pay them compensation and relocate them to the mainland, reverse the plantations.?Ireland?
I am sure everyone is happy with that.
Don't you worry your pretty little head over any of this unimportant detail
Creme de Menthe?
[img] 
[/img]
Nothing needs to change in the short term unless there are hidden agendas out there.
+1.
Not really that hidden an agenda really, is it?
Just take a look at the right-wing nutjobs presently steering Tory policy.
They get to use their newly granted, totally undemocratic executive powers to royally **** us all over in manners that would no way have stood up to democratic oversight.
Who'd bet against them 'accidentally' forgetting to transfer all the stuff about workers rights, and environmental standards?
Yup the agenda is there. Rip up environmental and employee protections.
@TJ I did already. No border from South to North. The EU has a problem with that as they require a border or a customs union solution.
Not all together surprisingly the Irish Foreign Minister is demanding a solution which best suits ... erm ... Ireland
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41218294
@binners we had a thread in "chlorine" washed chicken and I also commented that the EU has been considering approving the same for 2 years. Big issue in poland ATM re Salmonella which "chlorine" washing would solive. Awkward
Nope Jamba - you did not. The EU customs union requires full control of borders. The good Friday agreement requires open borders between the north and south or ireland. No one has come up with a workable solution to this yet - unless you have a revelation you could describe? One that does not involve wishful thinking and fairy dust
@binners we had a thread in "chlorine" washed chicken and I also commented that the EU has been considering approving the same for 2 years. Big issue in poland ATM re Salmonella which "chlorine" washing would solive. Awkward
We did, the conclusion is you don't understand agriculture and are happy to eat shit. I was very glad to get out of the US it's not a great food destination really. Chlorine washing fixes problems with production that should be fixed in production. Chlorine washing allows you to be sloppy and then sort of cover it up.
Ireland and the EU should demand the solution that works for them, this is being forced on them by the UK.
@binners we had a thread in "chlorine" washed chicken and I also commented that the EU has been considering approving the same for 2 years
I've considered all manner of things at one point or other.... wake boarding, homosexuality, avocado's, morris dancing, hunting with hammers.... all sorts of stuff. But then thought 'naaah, don't think I'll bother'
Tonight's prediction. More Labour votes with the Government than Tories against. Outlier no Tories vote against (Clarke and Soubry have already said they will vote with)
No, we live in a parliamentary democracy and 48% of those who voted have an opinion. That you don't agree that they have a right to representation says something about you.
Yes, I understand what is in their best interests. And you....?
As WF comments later, we are talking (largely) about how to integrate existing EU Law, which one would assume the 48 are strongly in favour of - into UK law with the minimum disruption and delay. That you don't agree that we should protect their interests says a lot about you. A lot.
Tonight's prediction. More Labour votes with the Government than Tories against. Outlier no Tories vote against (Clarke and Soubry have already said they will vote with)
Probably bang on there, Jammers. It doesn't mean anything though, does it?
Voting against at this point is just grandstanding, and probably counter-productive as the Mail and the rest of the foaming-at-the-mouth press will just go into full on hatstand 'Enemies of the People' mode
Soubry et al are just keeping their powder dry for the time being, ready to throw a proper spanner in the works later down the road when they can seriously derail things at committee stage
I expect Kate Hoey and a couple of the other more unhinged labour backbenchers will vote against or abstain
Like I said, at this point its just meaningless showboating, and playing to the gallery
Yes I did TJ. If the EU impose a border on Ireland that's their choice. We are NOT obliged to come up with a solution which meets their every whim, eg a solution yes that will cost you £200 billion, oh and while we are at it per anum. There are still walls and barricades in Belfast, if the EU tries to introduce birder posts in Ireland I suspect the Dublin government will just ignore them. To do otherwsie would make them look very foolish.
Ah I see more insults from @mike. "Chlorine" washed chicken is a red herring, the EU turns a blind eye to all sorts of illegal animal husbandry with respect to pork, poisoned eggs etc. I have eaten plenty of take away and supermarket bought chicken in the US as I would imagine have most European tourists and businessmen.
Yes, I understand what is in their best interests. And you....?
Ah, their best interests, if we were talking best interests we would have scrapped brexit long ago.
Take it you have Corbyn's latest, permenant single market membership?
Like I said, at this point its just meaningless showboating, and playing to the gallery
Yes I agree. All reflects badly on Labour, Starmer and Corbyn though.
Right Jamba - so you have no answer? You really think brexiteers would accept no border so migrants can just stroll into the UK? Even your beloved Tories accept the need for some sort of customs control - its just they want to do it with fairy dust.
Its not the EU imposing a border BTW - its the UK
meaningless showboating and playing to the gallery
It's tough keeping up with you Binns, a few pages ago you were all for parliamentary process even if it is just rubber stamping existing laws. I guess consistency is not one of your priorities 😉
As WF comments later, we are talking (largely) about how to integrate existing EU Law, which one would assume the 48 are strongly in favour of - into UK law with the minimum disruption and delay. That you don't agree that we should protect their interests says a lot about you. A lot.
I have absolute faith in May to screw the country the interests of survival. An act with out incredibly tight bounds has no place in the UK. As a tory apologist i suspect you find it hard to believe that most people in the UK view the tories with varying levels of suspicion and hatred.
ts we would have scrapped brexit long ago.
Ignoring the 52. Says even more about you.... 😉
As a tory apologist
You missed out nazi 😉