Forum menu
I feel that reminding people how little time is left is now pretty redundant. The Withdrawl Agreement is finished, and it sacrifices too much, the red lines that May and Corbyn have put in place ensured that. Only option now is to stop our exit, no better exit is possible next March (it may be later, who knows). Who will push for us to delay/revoke A50? Who will push for the public to have a say in what we do? Who will just sit on the "sidelines"?
If Jeremy thinks he has to play the long game, then that's what he will do. However, how long will we have to wait before we find out what & when he is going to effectively challenge this tory led Brexit? After the event perhaps? Or was his NCV omnishambles the highlight of his challenge?
Everything else flows from that. Everyone is getting thrown under that bus.
No everything flows from the fact that 1.7m more people voted to leave than to remain. Both Corbyn and May recognise the fact that the main driver of that was immigration. The end result is that anyone wanting to be PM has to declare themselves as against freedom of movement. If you think Corbyn should declare himself pro-free movement and pro-remain, then fine. But don't then in the next sentence moan about him not wanting to be PM or not showing the necessary ambition to win.
If you want to be PM, you need to show leadership.
And in a democracy the primary duty of a leader above all else is to respect the results of elections and referenda. Or do you want us to go back to a more autocratic setup?
Or do you want us to go back to a more autocratic setup?
MORE autocratic? When our government is quietly shelving many of its other manifesto promises so it can deliver one thing that's obsessed its leader, and when said leader decides not to allow votes she's going to lose. At least with a proper dictatorship you can stop pretending to listen to anyone else's opinion.
dazh - are you saying that if anyone that wants to be PM, they should follow the populist demands of the electorate? Or do we deserve a potential PM that makes decisions for the good of the country?
The end result is that anyone wanting to be PM has to declare themselves as against freedom of movement.
There was not a referendum on FoM. There was not a referendum on being in the Single Market. There was not a referendum on being in the customs union. These are all red lines that May & Corbyn chose. Plenty of people voted to leave the EU that were more than happy to stay in the Single Market, and to retain reciprocal accesss to education and work. Most people I know who voted Leave fit into this group.
And in a democracy the primary duty of a leader above all else is to respect the results of elections and referenda.
Why have politicans that put forward different policies to those that have recently been voted for then? Opposition and putting forward alternative polices is what democracy requires to be meaningful.
are you saying that if anyone that wants to be PM, they should follow the populist demands of the electorate?
FFS, Of course not. I'm saying that politicians, especially those in leadership positions, should respect the results of official elections and referenda.
Or do we deserve a potential PM that makes decisions for the good of the country?
We don't deserve anything. Or rather, we deserve exactly what we vote for. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the nature of our democracy. Obviously we can debate whether other systems of govt are preferable but I don't see anyone on here advocating revolution as a solution to brexit.
There was not a referendum on FoM.
Not technically. But it would take a brave/stupid politician to ignore this if they want to gain power.
And in a democracy the primary duty of a leader above all else is to respect the results of elections and referenda. Or do you want us to go back to a more autocratic setup?
The referendum in question was advisory and with what is basically a 50:50 split alienation of 50% by going the most extreme route rather than at least trying to negotiate from within the community. Or perhaps just enforce the laws and rules we already had recourse to
Our leaders are supposed to be smart enough to recognise when an action could do significant harm to the economy and society and act in the overall best interests of the people for the long term. This may or may not get them ever elected again..
should respect the results of official elections and referenda.
There has not been a referendum on FoM.
Labour lost the last general election, does that mean that it must adopt and support all Tory policies?
Why have politicans that put forward different policies to those that have recently been voted for then?Opposition and putting forward alternative polices is what democracy is.
Do I really have to explain this? My 10 year old understands this stuff. Yes, democracy is about differing policies and approaches to the many problems and issues faced by our society. But once the people have voted on them and made their decision, that decision must be respected until a new election is held.
The referendum in question was advisory
You seriously think this bit of technocratic semantics would wash? Every political leader (apart from F**age) was clear that the decision would be respected for obvious reasons (see above) .
Where do May & Corbyn's red lines come from? There are many ways to Leave, and most have been whipped against by our party leaders.
Anyway, we have what we have. You now either support no deal, or May's deal, or stopping all this (at least for now). What does Corbyn want? Many on here have made it clear that he can't force a general election… so now what? Sit on the sidelines and let the shit hit the fan, hoping that in a few years voters will only blame May and her party?
I read a comment recently that our politicians weren't showing much "statesmanship" at present.
It seems to me that is what we need right now. The time for (party) politics is over and the time for someone to lead the country out of this mess is here. All the current faffing on from all political parties is achieving nothing.
That may mean making some decisions that are unpopular to some, rather than trying (and failing) to keep everybody happy. That may mean telling the truth and being plain and honest to the people about our current situation, rather than continuing to pitch unlikely dreams. That may mean making some commitments to a way forward and pushing it through and being transparent rather than scheming behind the scenes. That may mean trying to educate and inform the electorate rather than just bending to their every whim. That may mean politicians putting themselves about a bit rather than only attending meetings with folk who agree with them.
Thing is that if someone, anyone did that and pulled it off, there is a reasonable chance that they would win the next election anyway. Fiddling while Rome burns could just as easily destroy any of the current political parties in the future.
If we drift into a No deal Brexit because nobody has the balls to take a stand, then these nob end politicians (of all parties) deserve to be strung up.
Trouble is none of them seem very keen to risk their current staus quo, they'd rather risk the whole of the UK.
All easier said than done but I can't see a way forward unless someone creates one......
Our leaders are supposed to be smart enough to recognise when an action could do significant harm to the economy and society and act in the overall best interests of the people for the long term. This may or may not get them ever elected again..
So what if taking an action (i.e publicly stating that Brexit should be cancelled) means that the tory party stay in power for another 20 years. That is not in the best interests of the people for the long term so the priority should be to take action which means you have a chance of beating them in an election. In the short term it may not look like the best action but in the long term it is.
Not technically. But it would take a brave/stupid politician to ignore this if they want to gain power.
An intelligent politician would have examined the issues and tried to find a solution other than the most extreme and potentially disastrous one.
There's an opinion piece in Graun today bemoaning the lack of important 'other business' getting anywhere in the commons at the moment - what with Brexit dominating everything.
Even this is a daft thing to moan about, though. How can any policy decisions actually be made when we are drifting towards a situation where there will be no money for anything any more? How can you agree to increase funding for 'X' when we are looking like we are going to lop at least 10% off of our already over-stretched national 'worth' for no good reason whatsoever?
This is why the commons should remain sitting over Xmas and beyond if necessary, until they see sense and revoke A50. Anything other than this means that all plans are off.
So what if taking an action (i.e publicly stating that Brexit should be cancelled) means that the tory party stay in power for another 20 years.
If Brexit ever happens I don't think it will take 20 years for people to work out it was a monumental error and blame the Tories for going through with it, that won't do their election chances much good and will do the opposition's chances a power of good. I don't think that opposition will be Labour though because they will feel betrayed by a leadership that was as much a part of Brexit as the Tories.
So what if taking an action (i.e publicly stating that Brexit should be cancelled) means that the tory party stay in power for another 20 years. That is not in the best interests of the people for the long term so the priority should be to take action which means you have a chance of beating them in an election. In the short term it may not look like the best action but in the long term it is.
Works fine until you realise that Brexit (and especially a No Deal) will cripple the country so badly that there really is no point in trying to make plans beyond the short-term. The thing about stuff that is at the bottom of a cliff having been thrown over is that it tends to be very difficult to put back together again.
Trouble is that all along folk have forgotten that nearly half of the people who voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit anyway. So focusing on keeping a percentage of those leave voters with very strong anti immigration opinions happy, rather than everyone else (including those who didn't vote and those who were too young to vote) is shirley going to decrease the size of your support base in the long term and lead to a nice long period in the political wilderness.
I know this is a simplistic view but can't these jokers do maths?
Many on here have made it clear that he can’t force a general election… so now what? Sit on the sidelines and let the shit hit the fan, hoping that in a few years voters will only blame May and her party?
If your first sentence is correct (it is), then by definition he has no power and has no option to do what you suggest in your second sentence. I struggle to get my head round why people can't understand this. As TJ says, what is he supposed to do?
Here's an idea, instead of jumping through ever more intricate logical hoops in order to blame Corbyn for brexit, how about actually highlighting the real culprits for this cluster****, and getting behind the only alternative option in the hope that the leadership and statesmandship you seek might actually come to pass? Seems to me that the 'drift' towards no deal is due in no small part to those who see brexit as yet another opportunity to depose Corbyn.
For the Corbynites here who think he's playing 12 dimensional chess. Heres a tweet with some info on how much effect various outcomes would have on Labours chances.
For those who don't want to click through,
Net change in likelihood to vote labour
Labour replace Corbyn as leader +14%
Labour move closer to the 'centre' or 'centre ground of politics in the UK 0%
Labour back a referendum on the final brexit deal -2%
Labout back a hard brexit -10%
Labout back a soft Brexit -13%
Labour move further to the 'left' of politics in the UK than they currently are -22%
There you go Corbynites. If you want electoral success. You know what to do.
Sadly the referendum failed to define a "politically significant difference", just a difference of 50:50 plus 1. For a very large sample size, and Brexit was a big sample, then any difference above 12,000 votes would have been statistically significant (a P value of 0.05 or a one in 20 chance of seeing such a difference by chance) - something many of the much smaller polls beforehand failed to do because the split was so close to 50/50.
When I design clinical trials, we look for a clinically significant difference, and evaluate the probability of seeing such a difference by chance. Suppose current treatment gives a survival of three months and the new treatment extends life by one extra day. To all intents, there is no difference, the drugs are the same, but if I did a big enough trial (and it would be huuuuge), I could detect that difference. This was the referendum.
The probability of seeing the 52/48% split by chance in 32 million people is about 10^-22 btw, so highly statistically significant. Differences that big are vanishingly unlikely to be due to chance. But is 52/48% split politically significant? No as events have shown, it's like those two drugs, no effective difference and no real preference either way.
The first entry referendum made no such mistake, 60% threshold was politically significant, and if it had gone the same way this time, I'd be happy to accept it as "the will of the people" and all that. But the 52/48% is really within political noise based on changing events over relatively short timeframes, and may well be different now.
It's a tragic failing of the understanding of polling, statistics and the meaning of significance. I'm opposed to referendums on principle, but can't see a way out of this mess other than a third.
So focusing on keeping a percentage of those leave voters with very strong anti immigration opinions happy, rather than everyone else (including those who didn’t vote and those who were too young to vote) is shirley going to decrease the size of your support base in the long term and lead to a nice long period in the political wilderness.
Both main parties want Brexit. One group are happily ploughing ahead and the rest are enabling them.
Overall voting won’t change. Tory voters who are disenfranchised won’t vote labour and vice Versa. There is no credible third option so people will stick to tradition and vote to block other people.
When all the shit settles they will retire a chunk of parliament then wipe the slate clean. All they need is a pretty boy or girl at the front and a good PR department
If Brexit ever happens I don’t think it will take 20 years for people to work out it was a monumental error and blame the Tories for going through with it
Ed you overestimate people's rationality. People will.blame the EU for no5mgivingnud what we wanted. Same as now they blame them for anything they don't like.
I struggle to get my head round why people can’t understand this.
Let me help.
- No Tories will vote with the opposition to kick out the Tories. Zero. None. Zilch.
- Many Tories will vote for a referendum and/or delay/cancelling of A50. They would also have voted for other ways of Leaving the EU, but the time for that has now passed.
Both main parties want Brexit.
See, i don't think they really do. Both can see the harm it will do, both can see that the 52:48:[those that didn't exercise their right to vote* or didn't have the franchise yet will be most deeply affected] is really too tight to call, but both are now more scared of the impact it has on their electability in future / the loonies in their midst / the damage to 'democracy' than they are of the big picture.
You don't let kids run into the road to prove your point that cars are dangerous even if they have expressed a clear desire to do just that. We need these mythical grown ups to grab our hands and save us from ourselves, rather than stand back and say 'well it's what they wanted'
* I know, if you can't be arsed to vote you lose the right to a say, but i also think that in a matter like this where you are voting to make a massive change then a vote not cast should weigh on the side of the status quo - and that's without those that didn't vote because there was no way that Leave could ever win
we have a representative democracy. One Party in the system shirked its responsibility in an attempt to shore up it's support and instead turned to a plebiscite, a system of voting that doesn't sit well with how our parliamentary govt works.
The result is where we are now, throw in that it's minority govt that can't push through it's agenda, and has to listen to and pay attention to it's extremes and outsiders and you have the bit of a mess we now have.
Needs a reset (election) not another referendum and a govt with a working majority, but the Tories will cling to power, as that's what both our parties are set up to do.
Seems to me that the ‘drift’ towards no deal is due in no small part to those who see brexit as yet another opportunity to depose Corbyn.
Many people support Corbyn (or in my case supported him) but can see that he is enabling Brexit, and do not approve. Pretty simple really. Pretending that his position and actions as regards Brexit doesn't matter is disingenuous. How are those that want Corbyn to shift on Brexit before it is too late (he won't) fuelling a drift towards a no deal exit?
Where are Momentum on this? Are they the people want to depose Corbyn? ...
At this point the absolute futility of trying to superimpose Brexit positions on top of parties or their leaders is obvious.
There is no solution to this that will leave a party intact or can be delivered by one party.
They will not be able to whip a vote on this due to the massive implications on the country as a whole. I fully expect there to either be a lot of dissent on anything that is not a confidence bill or a removal of the whip for the votes and permission to speak freely being granted.
the most unforgivable position is still being owned by May in refusing to allow debate or discussion and arbitrarily adding and removing options without any consultation.
Anyone else notice the difference in the language coming from the EU and Westminster on No Deal Plans?
The EU are implementing their plan.
The UK is discussing ramping up their planning.
It is there in a nutshell. The EU has their plan done and ready to implement. The UK (which is causing the problem) doesn't know what to do. Brilliant.
The EU are also (rightly) saying that the UK has no say in their No Deal Plan measures - which very easily and neatly takes a board rubber to the notion of a 'Managed No Deal'. There is no such thing - unless you count it being managed entirely by the EU. Iain Duncan Smith can bluster all he likes about 'the EU always caving in in the end'. It won't.
The EU is now effectively facing the UK down across the dusty street and saying 'draw'. Knowing full well that the best the UK will do is grab their revolver and blow their own foot off to make a point.
Shambles. Fiasco. Farce.
There is no solution to this that will leave a party intact or can be delivered by one party.
Someone gets it.
And there goes the last PMQs of the year.
A few utterly predictable and cringeworthy panto jokes and the usual bellowing and bawling - out of which comes........ nothing tangible or meaningful.
And then......it's off for a completely undeserved and inappropriate holiday with the biggest issue in the last fifty years still unresolved and hanging over us.
No wonder the EU are bewildered by us and are just getting on with their own stuff now.
Their entire history has been one of State Corporatism.
Wait until after Brexit when they will have the power to remove layers of regulation and protection and usher in a New Dawn of unbridled Capitalism.
Was corbyn right tho
Anyhoo... How come no mention of the LD/SNP/Green Vote of no Confidence proposal on the Beeb?
Was corbyn right tho
Yep
slowoldman -that has no chance of passing and is pure posturing.
IMO for a confidence vote to have any chance of passing the DUP and / or the couple of sensible tories need to be split off from the rest of the rabble. This means the only real chance of getting a confidence vote to work will be AFTER May loses the vote on her deal. #they all know this
Same with a vote on a second referendum. Mays deal has to be dead first so the choice does not include Mays deal so when its no deal or no brexit that is the only chance to either bring down the government of change course.
It's interesting that all Blair had to do was wave at a camera and say the words 'second referendum' and May went into complete meltdown.
With Corbyn, she just swats him aside to the point that he's the one who gets flustered and cocks up. All everyone is talking about now is, 'Did he really just call her a stupid woman?'
Really, that's going to be the most important story of the day?
slowoldman -that has no chance of passing and is pure posturing.
I don't doubt it, but whilst several newspapers appear to carry it the Beeb didn't. I thought given the background of the ERG "in party" no confidence vote in the PM and Corbyn's no confidence in the PM, a proposed vote of no confidence in the government itself might be worth a small mention.
Oh and I see the EU have proposed interim measures should we "crash out" to actually assist a transition, whilst the UK are stockpiling fridges and getting the troops ready.
Beeb coverage of SNP etc no confidence motion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46610666
Happy now?
Len McCluskey has been applying his particular style of logic again …
Because there are many supporters of another referendum that are either not Labour people, or are Labour people lukewarm to the current leader, then to support a referendum is to oppose Labour being in government. Ignoring of course that those that support Corbyn wholeheartedly (including Momentum members) are the ones most fully in favour of a second referendum, and want Labour to campaign to end Brexit. Enemies within?
He then goes on to talk about lots of good, but unrelated, stuff about workers pay and rights. Some sugar for your medicine.
Anyway, my favourite line…
…Remainers, deliberately misreading Labour’s conference decision, wished to tick on their way to a further referendum.
Oh and I see the EU have proposed interim measures should we “crash out” to actually assist a transition, whilst the UK are stockpiling fridges and getting the troops ready.
An economist of Channel 4 news last night had some perspective on it. There are a number of things we can do unilaterally, such as not applying tariffs to imports (to keep food prices, other stuff stable) continuing to do the customs checks we do now (but no more) and the EU would let us continue as we are for months as it is in neither parties interest for it to go completely to pot. Doesn't sound as dramatic as the "Cliff edge Brexit end of the world chaos" but more likely to happen.
It’s interesting that all Blair had to do was wave at a camera and say the words ‘second referendum’ and May went into complete meltdown.
it's different when one of her fellow Tories criticizes her I suppose.
And then……it’s off for a completely undeserved and inappropriate holiday
I don't think being physically in Parliament is the only work MPs do. I suspect many of them will remain busy throughout the holiday period. Unlike me.
Given their track record this year - of everything they touch turning to shite - I'm actually happier if they're not busy
I don’t think being physically in Parliament is the only work MPs do. I suspect many of them will remain busy throughout the holiday period. Unlike me.
To be fair if any of us had being doing our jobs as badly as they are, I very much doubt we'd be coming back to work after Christmas
An economist of Channel 4 news last night had some perspective on it.
Shankar Singham of the IEA/Legatum again? How reassuring.
Happy now?
Pfft. Meanwhile "Stupid Woman" all over the front page.
For all those asking what else can he do, here's what Schrodinger's Brexiteer could have done this week.
With the judgement that we can unilaterally revoke A50 at any time, now would have been the perfect time to force May to commit to not allowing a No Deal Brexit. Spend all week battering her on it, then call a VONC (an actual one, not whatever it is he did) when she continually refuses to say she will not allow a No Deal Brexit.
Forget the ERG and DUP. They're lunatics, cowards, and morons. They'll serve their own interests no matter what. Concentrate on the Tories who say they will not allow No Deal to come to pass.
A vote for the government is a vote for No Deal.
Would it work?
Maybe. But at least it's taking a chance and doing something. If she wins, it exposes every single Tory as being about party before country, no matter what they might say about principles.
Bruce wee - thats a tactic that could work but IMO only after the vote on Mays deal falls so no longer can anyone pretend that Mays deal is an option. Mays deal has to fall before the DUP and / or sensible tories can be split off
Hammond "stupid woman"
only after the vote on Mays deal falls
Exactly, which is why Labour want the vote and May is delaying it. Once that deal is out of the way there is nothing left. That is the time to discuss No Deal or Revoke.
Clearly it will go all the way to March 29 but I thought that would be the case 2 years ago.
such as not applying tariffs to imports (to keep food prices,
which means dropping ALL tariffs, there will be a WTO based attack if we try and drop some tariffs and maintain others without a trade agreement in place.
WTO would result in application of tariffs on UK exports, if the UK drops the tarrifs unilaterally then there is nothing to negotiate. Why would any country reduce there tariffs for UK exports?
I'm seeing no signs that he has any desire to go down this road. If he did he would already be making noises about ruling out No Deal. I think he's with the government on this judgement, in that it's very inconvenient (not least because Labour didn't have anything to do with it) and the best thing to do is to pretend it never happened.
How many times has it been mentioned by any front-bencher that it is entirely in our power to stop a No Deal Brexit?
Hold the front page! - we now have "stupid women".
The final PM's questions of the year in pantomine land and we have "he said this/oh no he didn't" That's not even correct, it should've been "cretinous ****"
With Corbyn, she just swats him aside to the point that he’s the one who gets flustered and cocks up. All everyone is talking about now is, ‘Did he really just call her a stupid woman?’
Really, that’s going to be the most important story of the day?
Yes, yes it is.
Not only do we have to put up with the circus that is PMQs, he then hands her a free pass with another day of headlines that are off topic with regards to the single biggest political issue of our times and the government's total mishandling of it.
One of the things that has been said of Thatcher is that she was fortunate in her enemies - Scargill, Galtieri, Foot etc. The same could easily be said now. Face meet palm.
Bruce Wee Corbyn has said on many occasions no deal would be a disaster and must be avoided.
At any point has he said that we now know we can unilaterally revoke A50?
Yes. He said that Mays pretence its her deal or no deal is rubbish given the court ruling.
Please don't tell me that if he even hinted at revoking A50 it would lose him votes. I think at this point we all know it's a bit late for anything else.
When I was listening to PMQs I thought I heard Jeremy say that no deal was disastrous and unacceptable.
That’s close enough to him ruling it out for me.
Please don’t tell me that if he even hinted at revoking A50 it would lose him votes
Not just votes but enemy of the people headlines as well.
The armchair opposition leaders on this thread wouldn't last 5 minutes. It would be better if politics wasn't a big game but the fact is that it is
Just needs to trigger no confidence vote in time for xmas say he will revoke artikal 50 and we be comrades for new year
“No deal would be a disaster for our country. No responsible government would ever allow it. No deal is simply not an option,” he said. “Why doesn’t the prime minister stop the pretence and stop wasting £4bn in a cynical attempt to drive votes for her deal?”
Yeah but he needs to say it....... If he would only try and rule out no deal people would back him....PALESTINE IRA COMMUNIST He called her Stupid!!!
The armchair opposition leaders on this thread wouldn’t last 5 minutes.
Yeah, I'm sure if anyone on this thread were in his chair they would have made some kind of idiotic statement that would completely derail whatever plan they were trying to execute.
Tory MPs themselves are doing the job he should be doing by coming out and saying they will do everything in their power to block their own government. They're not doing that because he manoeuvred them into that position. They're doing that because he is doing such a good job of missing every open goal that's pushed in front of him.
Who knows what's going to happen between now and whenever this vote actually takes place.
Both May and Corbyn say that want "a" deal, not no deal. But that's where we are heading. Both whipped against Single Market, Customs Union, EEA… both hold on fast to their end of FoM promise. Both say Brexit must happen.
That’s close enough to him ruling it out for me.
"All this chaos you see around you was their fault, there's nothing I could have done to stop it."
No responsible government would ever allow it. No deal is simply not an option
"Had we'd been in government, we'd have got a deal that half of MPs would have backed, that ended FoM, maintained frictionless trade, and was supported by the public. That is why we were against the public choosing between May's awful deal and remaining. This chaos is all their fault."
OOOh finally something might be happening -
Keir Starmer is now making an application for an emergency debate under standing under 24.
He says the decision by the Cabinet to accelerate preparations for a no deal yesterday, involving an additional spending of £2bn, would not had happened had the meaningful vote on the Brexit deal not been delayed.
He says no government "has the right to risk the well being the country" as a result its own failed negotiations, and it is vital it is held account when "the sums and the stakes are so high".
Mr Bercow says he is satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed.
Conservative MP Peter Bone objects to the motion, but Mr Bercow says sufficient members have stood in support of it. The debate will take place "immediately", for up to three hours, following the ten minute rule motion.
He says the decision by the Cabinet to accelerate preparations for a no deal yesterday, involving an additional spending of £2bn, would not had happened had the meaningful vote on the Brexit deal not been delayed.
If the vote had been taken, and lost, as expected, would the government not have still pushed on with no deal prep? Probably more urgently.
Conservative MP Peter Bone objects to the motion,
Anything opposed by Peter Bone is immediately a good thing.
True.
Peter Bone is a prize pillock.
Talking of which, I heard most of Sajid Javed on R4 this morning, but didn’t hear the very start (and so didn’t know it was him). I genuinely thought it was a junior minister at best and much more likely to be a run of the mill MP sitting on a committee. When I found out it was actually a senior minister I was astounded.
Useless pillocks.
I'm no lip reader but it looks like Corbyn says stupid people to me, different from Hammond who says women.
How did you not know it was him, he got the 2nd generation kid of immigrants so I'm the best person to try and not make our policy sound that bad....
Most senior ministers are trying so hard to avoid saying something to be played back at them next week (we'll later that day)
Exactly, which is why Labour want the vote and May is delaying it.
I don't think Labour actually want the vote. There isn't a fag paper between her deal and their preferred deal, so they are happy to see that chosen by default and meanwhile the Tories take flak for being disorganised. Win-win.
A lot of the Brexit Tory's are scheming, devious bastards pushing Brexit through for their own evil ends
Peter Bone is just so terminally dense I remember listening to him justify Brexit and concluded that my cat has got a more solid grasp of economics than him
****ing clown!
I’m no lip reader but it looks like Corbyn says stupid people to me, different from Hammond who says women.
Also
Can we take a moment to marvel at the chutzpah of a Tory Party that will wail and gnash teeth over an insult to Theresa May, but sees nothing wrong with restoring the whip to Charlie Elphicke and Andrew Griffiths to let them vote for May?
Bone always makes those 1970s "my wife" type jokes in parliament. Politics aside, that makes him a bit of a dick.
This latest "squirrel!" about who said what about the stupid person supposedly running the country better die off fast. Such a pointless distraction. And she is anyway… stupid that is… talked herself into making "no deal" a UK power play… then eventually learnt enough to realise that all that did is get EU backs up, and embolden people in her own party to reject whatever deal she arrived at. Plenty warned her from the start. Too stupid and blinkered to listen.
God… the BBC are talking about nothing other than… "squirrel!" now. Tedious.
continuing to do the customs checks we do now (but no more) and the EU would let us continue as we are for months
There'll be no reason to do any more Customs checks than we do now. The tricky bit is that EU goods would now require a customs declaration. I'm told it takes about 20 minutes and costs about £20 to make a customs declaration and I don't think anybody has yet worked out how that supposed to work at Dover