Blimey, it turns out the bloke bankrolling the Leave campaign more than any other has been caught out lying about his links with Russia. Who would have thought it...
By sheer coincidence presumably, around the same time Mr Banks was provided with an opportunity to invest in Russian gold businesses worth £billions. What fortunate timing.
Well that explains it. In did wonder who the guy was that was holding a gun to my head when i voted.
Are you for real? Whatever way a person voted in the referendum surely we have to be very concerned when foreign governments attempt/succeed in influencing events to their own benefit.
So much for taking back control.
Were you equally concerned when every foreign leader from Obama down joined in the Remain campaign during the referendum campaign, or that the campaign for a second referendum is part funded by non Brits? I do not recall if you were, perhaps you could enlighten us?
You see an equivalence between democratically elected allies expressing their opinion in public and non elected dictators (who many would describe as our enemy) secretly using cash to influence our country?
If so you are not worth taking seriously.
I see people like you getting het up about conspiracy theories because you hate Brexit. You meanwhile are totally blind to the fact that it is Remainers at home and abroad who are gradually overturning the Brexit decision-I fear the home grown attack on democracy more than Putin any day.
Not sure how you can make a statement like that. The only people who can overturn the decision are the British people and there is absolutely nothing wrong with remainers trying to get to that to happen as Brexiters would if the circumstances were reversed.
A lot of the argument seems to be around those wanting a hard Brexit and a Soft one. A failing of the referendum and a perfectly valid area for debate given that. What is undemocratic and quite frankly ridiculous is people saying I didn't vote for this or I didn't vote for that, like the whole vote was about their reasons! Just look at the polls which are showing a clear preference for a soft Brexit amongst the British people.
Then there is a statement even more ridiculous. We voted for a Hard Brexit becaise Cameron and Osborne told us that is what we would get! Well everything they said was project fear and not true when they said it, but now it suits them, it is the basis for proving we all wanted a hard Brexit.
There are different ways of leaving the EU and anybody with a modicum of mathematical ability would easily be able to show that there is no appetite for a hard Brexit. Seeing as the question was not asked, we only know the decision was to leave, we can safely assume that pretty much all of the 48% that voted remain will prefer a soft Brexit if it is between that or a hard one. So only a small percentage of leavers need to want a soft Brexit to tip the balance and all the reliable information we have demonstrates this actually is the case.
So I am going to make the same accusation that hard Brexiters are making and turn it on them. These people are not interested in the will of the British people! The are anti-democratic.
The priblem is that soft Brexit does not exist, at best it is soft Remain, which means accepting all the rules and paying money but having no say. That is where we are heading and nobody will be happy with that. Asking the question 'would you prefer a soft Brexit' is dishonest for that reason. But if you have a different view of what soft Brexit is I would be interested to hear it.
Of course it exists - polls are showing that a large majority of the British public want it over a hard one, whereas it is too close to call now between leave and remain. This should tell you the two questions are not the same, even if you hold a different view!
If it exists, please explain what it is that is different from my description of 'soft remain'.
You have just exposed the weakness of your argument with that statement. We were in the EU. So staying in meant staying as we were - that would have been clear to everybody. Leaving was about leaving with the best deal for us, and we can all argue what we think that is! Unless everybody - leavers and remainers should defer to your one!
Surely we could correct the fault of the referendum and ask the people what they meant. Unless we are fearful of the answer they will give!
Blimey, it turns out the bloke bankrolling the Leave campaign more than any other has been caught out lying about his links with Russia. Who would have thought it...
By sheer coincidence presumably, around the same time Mr Banks was provided with an opportunity to invest in Russian gold businesses worth £billions. What fortunate timing.
Well that explains it. In did wonder who the guy was that was holding a gun to my head when i voted.
Are you for real? Whatever way a person voted in the referendum surely we have to be very concerned when foreign governments attempt/succeed in influencing events to their own benefit.
So much for taking back control.
Were you equally concerned when every foreign leader from Obama down joined in the Remain campaign during the referendum campaign, or that the campaign for a second referendum is part funded by non Brits? I do not recall if you were, perhaps you could enlighten us?
You see an equivalence between democratically elected allies expressing their opinion in public and non elected dictators (who many would describe as our enemy) secretly using cash to influence our country?
If so you are not worth taking seriously.
I see people like you getting het up about conspiracy theories because you hate Brexit. You meanwhile are totally blind to the fact that it is Remainers at home and abroad who are gradually overturning the Brexit decision-I fear the home grown attack on democracy more than Putin any day.
Not sure how you can make a statement like that. The only people who can overturn the decision are the British people and there is absolutely nothing wrong with remainers trying to get to that to happen as Brexiters would if the circumstances were reversed.
A lot of the argument seems to be around those wanting a hard Brexit and a Soft one. A failing of the referendum and a perfectly valid area for debate given that. What is undemocratic and quite frankly ridiculous is people saying I didn't vote for this or I didn't vote for that, like the whole vote was about their reasons! Just look at the polls which are showing a clear preference for a soft Brexit amongst the British people.
Then there is a statement even more ridiculous. We voted for a Hard Brexit becaise Cameron and Osborne told us that is what we would get! Well everything they said was project fear and not true when they said it, but now it suits them, it is the basis for proving we all wanted a hard Brexit.
There are different ways of leaving the EU and anybody with a modicum of mathematical ability would easily be able to show that there is no appetite for a hard Brexit. Seeing as the question was not asked, we only know the decision was to leave, we can safely assume that pretty much all of the 48% that voted remain will prefer a soft Brexit if it is between that or a hard one. So only a small percentage of leavers need to want a soft Brexit to tip the balance and all the reliable information we have demonstrates this actually is the case.
So I am going to make the same accusation that hard Brexiters are making and turn it on them. These people are not interested in the will of the British people! The are anti-democratic.
The priblem is that soft Brexit does not exist, at best it is soft Remain, which means accepting all the rules and paying money but having no say. That is where we are heading and nobody will be happy with that. Asking the question 'would you prefer a soft Brexit' is dishonest for that reason. But if you have a different view of what soft Brexit is I would be interested to hear it.
Of course it exists - polls are showing that a large majority of the British public want it over a hard one, whereas it is too close to call now between leave and remain. This should tell you the two questions are not the same, even if you hold a different view!
If it exists, please explain what it is that is different from my description of 'soft remain'.
You have just exposed the weakness of your argument with that statement. We were in the EU. So staying in meant staying as we were - that would have been clear to everybody. Leaving was about leaving with the best deal for us, and we can all argue what we think that is! Unless everybody - leavers and remainers should defer to your one!
But what kind of deal is a soft Brexit that differs from my description above?-you seem to be avoiding the question. Any other believers in soft Brexit feel free to help explain.
I think a soft Brexit is better than a hard one. I think remaining is better than leaving. But what I am saying is that rather than defer to my preference for a soft Brexit - why not ask the British people? I put it to you that you don't want that as you are afraid of what they might say. I would have to accept whatever they said - and they could favour a Hard Brexit. It is just all the available evidence suggests otherwise. But I say, ask the electorate - I am a democrat.
And being a democrat, if enough people change their minds, Brexit can be stopped democratically. But the question is hard or soft - both are ways of leaving and I say again, the public were not given this choice!
Blimey, it turns out the bloke bankrolling the Leave campaign more than any other has been caught out lying about his links with Russia. Who would have thought it...
By sheer coincidence presumably, around the same time Mr Banks was provided with an opportunity to invest in Russian gold businesses worth £billions. What fortunate timing.
Well that explains it. In did wonder who the guy was that was holding a gun to my head when i voted.
Are you for real? Whatever way a person voted in the referendum surely we have to be very concerned when foreign governments attempt/succeed in influencing events to their own benefit.
So much for taking back control.
Were you equally concerned when every foreign leader from Obama down joined in the Remain campaign during the referendum campaign, or that the campaign for a second referendum is part funded by non Brits? I do not recall if you were, perhaps you could enlighten us?
You see an equivalence between democratically elected allies expressing their opinion in public and non elected dictators (who many would describe as our enemy) secretly using cash to influence our country?
If so you are not worth taking seriously.
Unfortunately we have to take this seriously since our country is being led to the cliff edge by the architects of such false equivalences.
First leave took the cuddly NHS and promised it cash in exchange for voting leave. Then they said we can resolve details later. And finally they stated that the EU share of our exports was declining so we should focus on the rest of the world.
At the time leave failed to rule out a Norway model because of the simple arithmetic illustrated in a recent poll - they would have been hammered!
So back in 2016 numbers and slogans convinced 52% of the electorate to vote leave. Since then we've seen Trump elected plus the EU has signed up FTAs with Canada and Japan.
So now we have the actual negotiations and all manner of blame narratives being rehearsed. Fortunately Parliament and the EU27 are dragging us back to a soft Brexit position inch by inch.
We are not leaving anything until 2021. Between now and then we shall see how the polls develop and what real options (as opposed to imaginary ones) are on the table. Assuming the EU continues to grow, it's a no brainer to stay close.
Of course a minority of around 30% want to leave everything. Just as a minority wish to overturn the referendum.
For what it's worth, I've long believed in "Brexit in name only" and that came about once May triggered article 50, some 15 months ago. We don't need to agree with Varoufakis and his stance on Greece to recognise his experience dealing with the EU. Ultimately it's Norway or nothing and Yanis V pointed this out within a week of Article 50.
The problem with the negotiations and why they were doomed from the start stems from not being clear what we want - so the logic is to clarify what the people want. But the hard Brexiters don't want this! Because the outcome would not be what they want. if they knew it would, they would be pushing for such a vote!
It is surely true that most Brexiters would have wanted a hard Brexit - I don't argue that. But most of the British people want a soft one - that is clear also - if it is a choice between the two of course. The referendum could have been rigged to favour both sides but it wasn't because only one question was asked. The fact that a country like Norway is not in the EU and this is an accepted fact, means we could leave the EU maintaining a relationship like them! We could also leave with a hard Brexit, but nobody was asked this question.
The problem with the negotiations and why they were doomed from the start stems from not being clear what we want - so the logic is to clarify what the people want. But the hard Brexiters don't want this! Because the outcome would not be what they want. if they knew it would, they would be pushing for such a vote!
It is surely true that most Brexiters would have wanted a hard Brexit - I don't argue that. But most of the British people want a soft one - that is clear also - if it is a choice between the two of course. The referendum could have been rigged to favour both sides but it wasn't because only one question was asked. The fact that a country like Norway is not in the EU and this is an accepted fact, means we could leave the EU maintaining a relationship like them! We could also leave with a hard Brexit, but nobody was asked this question.
I think we can all agree the negotiations were doomed from the start because the political parties did not want to leave, and they run the show. The referendum result could not have been clearer-leave the EU. If our political classes lead us into a position where it is leave in name only they will surely have proved themselves utterly useless all round.
The problem with the negotiations and why they were doomed from the start stems from not being clear what we want - so the logic is to clarify what the people want. But the hard Brexiters don't want this! Because the outcome would not be what they want. if they knew it would, they would be pushing for such a vote!
It is surely true that most Brexiters would have wanted a hard Brexit - I don't argue that. But most of the British people want a soft one - that is clear also - if it is a choice between the two of course. The referendum could have been rigged to favour both sides but it wasn't because only one question was asked. The fact that a country like Norway is not in the EU and this is an accepted fact, means we could leave the EU maintaining a relationship like them! We could also leave with a hard Brexit, but nobody was asked this question.
I think we can all agree the negotiations were doomed from the start because the political parties did not want to leave, and they run the show. The referendum result could not have been clearer-leave the EU. If our political classes lead us into a position where it is leave in name only they will surely have proved themselves utterly useless all round.
Not sure I agree with this. Those voting brexit completely anticipated what the 'political' parties would do because they knew what they were voting for.
It's no surprise that Brexiters are terrified of another vote, or even a proper discussion of what Brexit means. As a snapshot of a moment in time the conditions for the Leave vote were perfect: a sense of dissatisfaction at the government/ruling class, a lack of proper information about the consequences of Brexit as well as fanciful ideas of a post Brexit NHS windfall plus of course the drip feed anti EU and anti immigration stories in the tabloid press.
I do agree with others that Brexit has to happen now, but do worry that the generation that will have to deal with its consequences should have some say in how it is delivered at least. Surely the democratically minded Leave voters shouldn't object to people exercising their opinion on what happens next after a properly informed national debate.
Blimey, it turns out the bloke bankrolling the Leave campaign more than any other has been caught out lying about his links with Russia. Who would have thought it...
By sheer coincidence presumably, around the same time Mr Banks was provided with an opportunity to invest in Russian gold businesses worth £billions. What fortunate timing.
Well that explains it. In did wonder who the guy was that was holding a gun to my head when i voted.
Are you for real? Whatever way a person voted in the referendum surely we have to be very concerned when foreign governments attempt/succeed in influencing events to their own benefit.
So much for taking back control.
Were you equally concerned when every foreign leader from Obama down joined in the Remain campaign during the referendum campaign, or that the campaign for a second referendum is part funded by non Brits? I do not recall if you were, perhaps you could enlighten us?
You see an equivalence between democratically elected allies expressing their opinion in public and non elected dictators (who many would describe as our enemy) secretly using cash to influence our country?
If so you are not worth taking seriously.
I see people like you getting het up about conspiracy theories because you hate Brexit. You meanwhile are totally blind to the fact that it is Remainers at home and abroad who are gradually overturning the Brexit decision-I fear the home grown attack on democracy more than Putin any day.
So, let me get this straight, you are arguing that efforts in Parliament to have MPs determine what Brexit will look like (which seems at least almost reasonable in a Parliamentary democracy), as well as the efforts by others to make a case for another referendum for the people to decide on the deal, if any, (both of which are in the public domain and upfront) are a bigger threat to democracy than the impact of hidden money and, admittedly, intelligent, if morally questionable methods and the people behind them (none of which is open and upfront - witness funding for the DUP's London media campaign)?
Apologies for the length of the question, but, if you don't see that there is a fundamental issue about accountability in organisations seeking to influence the political direction of the state, accepting funding from opaque sources and employing targeted advertising based on personal data obtained in circumstances that give pause for thought, I really worry about your sense of perspective.
The most important accountability in a democracy is elected representatives being and remaining accountable to the people. What I currently see is our two main political parties, both of which stood on a Brexit programme last year, manoeuvring their way towards a relationship with the EU which is distinguishable from full membership only in that it makes us less influential within the EU than before-an outcome nobody wants.
There may have been different ideas of what Brexit would mean, but staying in the Customs Union, the single market, being under the ECJ and accepting freedom of movement, while paying money and having no say over the rules was NOBODY' s idea of Brexit. This is the road we are travelling down because the political majorities in this country never supported leaving and have done their best to avoid it.
You may support this, which is your right, but please do not lecture me about accountability or democracy at the same time.
Then you are arguing that the UK is not a democracy.
Politicians are elected by the electorate (sub-optimally, IMHO, because of First Past The Post), but they are not compelled to legislate in a given way. MPs do not seek their constituents' approval for each Parliamentary vote, and, although candidates stand on party platforms, they are elected as individuals, not selected from a Party list (which is why, for example, a politician can remain an MP on leaving their party).
For what it is worth, as the position of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party is that the UK is leaving the EU, insofar as that was a commitment to the electorate, both are complying with precisely that which was promised.
If the Conservative version of Brexit was more extreme than that of Labour, it's a fairly moot point, because, in the absence of a majority following the General Election, there is no evidence that Theresa May's version of Brexit satisfied the desire of the UK electorate.
There is no clear mandate for anything other than no longer being an EU member state.
Parliamentary scrutiny is an essential component of the UK version of democracy, in the absence of a clear Parliamentary majority, this system, effectively, demands that the Government seek alliances and compromises to bring forward legislation so Theresa May cannot stride forth as a Colossus vanquishing her opponents before her. The process around the Brexit votes, including the House of Lords' amendments are the British political settlement in action, as it is intended to work.
PS, for what it's worth, if there has to be , heaven forbid, a Brexit, the one that you say that nobody wants is precisely that with which I could perhaps reconcile myself.
The problem with the negotiations and why they were doomed from the start stems from not being clear what we want - so the logic is to clarify what the people want. But the hard Brexiters don't want this! Because the outcome would not be what they want. if they knew it would, they would be pushing for such a vote!
It is surely true that most Brexiters would have wanted a hard Brexit - I don't argue that. But most of the British people want a soft one - that is clear also - if it is a choice between the two of course. The referendum could have been rigged to favour both sides but it wasn't because only one question was asked. The fact that a country like Norway is not in the EU and this is an accepted fact, means we could leave the EU maintaining a relationship like them! We could also leave with a hard Brexit, but nobody was asked this question.
I think we can all agree the negotiations were doomed from the start because the political parties did not want to leave, and they run the show. The referendum result could not have been clearer-leave the EU. If our political classes lead us into a position where it is leave in name only they will surely have proved themselves utterly useless all round.
The negotiations were doomed from the start because a hard Brexit that does not inflict the most devastating negative effect on the U.K. Economy that will last for several generations is simply not possible. This is a harsh reality that has become more evident with each passing day since the Referendum and senior business leaders, senior civil servants, the Bank of England and a myriad of "experts" have being making this case to the government with increasing urgency. If our political leaders think they can ignore this mountain of evidence and run the country over the cliff edge because of a non binding very marginal referendum result two years ago they will not only be judged by historians but maybe also courts of law!
It is possible but not sensible. You could drive to the coast and jump of a cliff if you wanted to. But difficult to see what advantage that would give you! Of course the only democratic thing to do is to ask the electorate what they meant. Now I was not in favour of having the vote in the first place, which isn't democratic I suppose. It happened though and if you are going to adopt the will of the people, it is sensible to try to understand what it is! Anybody who says it isn't what I voted for is a selfish git if that should mean anything other than it isn't what they voted for. They can't speak for anybody else! I am calling out all of those that claim a hard Brexit is democratic as they are talking out of their backsides. It can be settled really easily by asking the people. It is the only way given the referendum was so ill thought out because Cameron was sure of the opposite outcome!
Marr (Maoist Cambidge graduate), Preston (son of a Lord) and especially Neill (multi millionaire, Blair supporting, war enthusiast twat who the BBC pays more than the Prime Minister earns) et al will continue to not give a shit.
Returning to their £2 million plus homes, cosseted from reality thanks to their huge media incomes and related benefits.
They will carry on attending their exclusive restaurants, clubs, schools whilst pretending to care about anything but themselves.
I think you have not read Robert Peston's most recent book "WTF". Anyone who has read it would surely give him a break. Not only does he show that he "gets it" ("it" being the point you make) but the book goes on to make a whole raft of radical yet practical proposals which address the root causes of ordinary people's discontent. That sets him apart from most politicians as well as Marr (who likes to write history books extolling what a great nation the UK is) and Neill who cannot write much more than a tweet, usually a personal attack.
No, not read it, but read 'Brown's Britain'. Some astonishing insights into those calamitous years. Not mentioned on CL for some reason.
But nevertheless, and irrespective of a book he produced, he is still, as I said, the son of a Lord, an Oxford graduate with a very privileged background and no fear of slipping into a low income bracket who lives in a multi-million pound house in Camden.
As he said in the Evening Standard ''My neighbours have been extraordinarily welcoming, even putting me on the team for our road’s New Year’s Day football match. I love that the community is not just poshos like me, so I can buy a lavatory brush in a proper hardware store and gluten-free bread. I joined The Groucho in 1985 when it opened. It was fun and slightly sleazy then, and is fun and slightly sleazy now. Which is obvs what I aspire to be.''
I suggest he is pretty immune to the disasters that may come from Brexit. Surely there is nothing to argue about there?
Indeed not, since the opening part of his book says exactly that. Somewhat to my initial dismay he not only confirms that the "liberal metropolitan elite" exists, but that he is a member. He then though goes on to blame the LME, including himslef, for not caring about the lives of ordinary people since 2008, and that this failure will cost everybody. So based on this book i would say that what marks Peston out from the others you mention and many on the right, politicians or otherwise, is a decent dose of empathy. Perhaps it's connected to him being also a fairly committed football fan.
A referendum is a terrible way to decide a non-binary issue. The evidence of that is very obvious: there is no clear majority of people on the *type* of Brexit we should have. In fact, by far, it seems that the most popular outcome is to scrap Brexit altogether (being more popular than any one of "hard Brext", "soft Brexit" and "no-deal Brexit"). So it's interesting to look at the opposing views as to how a referendum result should be managed.
On the one hand, there are those people who think that the people should have the final say. In order to ensure "democracy". This group supports a further referendum, to ensure that, now the voters have a better, clearer, deeper understanding of the impacts of Brexit, a fully informed decision can be made. Either we agree the terms of the deal and the people endorse it, so we move ahead; or we agree the terms of the deal and the people reject it, so we scrap the idea and remain.
The opposite view is that a referendum should be final and binding. So we vote once, and once only on decimalisation, proportional representation, Scottish independence, driving on the right, the tv licence, etc. We run the referendum, count the votes, declare the winner, stick with the result and move on. In this case, the European referendum of 1975 gave a clear indication that we should be *in* so we shouldn't revisit that decision.
It would be interesting to see which side most people - especially those that want us to leave - come down on. Is your preference to allow the people to have the final stay? Or to respect a referendum decision and not revisit it?
Newsnight persuades Arron Banks to go on tonight. Then Farage invites him and his bitch Wigmore onto his LBC show, so Banks pulls out of Newsnight. Easier option, eh, you fat slug. Carole Cadwalladr gets wind of this so tries to call up Farage's show. But mysteriously she cannot get through. So she gets a friend to call on her behalf, and...
Blimey, it turns out the bloke bankrolling the Leave campaign more than any other has been caught out lying about his links with Russia. Who would have thought it...
By sheer coincidence presumably, around the same time Mr Banks was provided with an opportunity to invest in Russian gold businesses worth £billions. What fortunate timing.
Well that explains it. In did wonder who the guy was that was holding a gun to my head when i voted.
Are you for real? Whatever way a person voted in the referendum surely we have to be very concerned when foreign governments attempt/succeed in influencing events to their own benefit.
So much for taking back control.
Were you equally concerned when every foreign leader from Obama down joined in the Remain campaign during the referendum campaign, or that the campaign for a second referendum is part funded by non Brits? I do not recall if you were, perhaps you could enlighten us?
You see an equivalence between democratically elected allies expressing their opinion in public and non elected dictators (who many would describe as our enemy) secretly using cash to influence our country?
If so you are not worth taking seriously.
Unfortunately we have to take this seriously since our country is being led to the cliff edge by the architects of such false equivalences.
First leave took the cuddly NHS and promised it cash in exchange for voting leave. Then they said we can resolve details later. And finally they stated that the EU share of our exports was declining so we should focus on the rest of the world.
At the time leave failed to rule out a Norway model because of the simple arithmetic illustrated in a recent poll - they would have been hammered!
So back in 2016 numbers and slogans convinced 52% of the electorate to vote leave. Since then we've seen Trump elected plus the EU has signed up FTAs with Canada and Japan.
So now we have the actual negotiations and all manner of blame narratives being rehearsed. Fortunately Parliament and the EU27 are dragging us back to a soft Brexit position inch by inch.
We are not leaving anything until 2021. Between now and then we shall see how the polls develop and what real options (as opposed to imaginary ones) are on the table. Assuming the EU continues to grow, it's a no brainer to stay close.
Of course a minority of around 30% want to leave everything. Just as a minority wish to overturn the referendum.
For what it's worth, I've long believed in "Brexit in name only" and that came about once May triggered article 50, some 15 months ago. We don't need to agree with Varoufakis and his stance on Greece to recognise his experience dealing with the EU. Ultimately it's Norway or nothing and Yanis V pointed this out within a week of Article 50.
Blimey, it turns out the bloke bankrolling the Leave campaign more than any other has been caught out lying about his links with Russia. Who would have thought it...
By sheer coincidence presumably, around the same time Mr Banks was provided with an opportunity to invest in Russian gold businesses worth £billions. What fortunate timing.
Well that explains it. In did wonder who the guy was that was holding a gun to my head when i voted.
Are you for real? Whatever way a person voted in the referendum surely we have to be very concerned when foreign governments attempt/succeed in influencing events to their own benefit.
So much for taking back control.
Were you equally concerned when every foreign leader from Obama down joined in the Remain campaign during the referendum campaign, or that the campaign for a second referendum is part funded by non Brits? I do not recall if you were, perhaps you could enlighten us?
You see an equivalence between democratically elected allies expressing their opinion in public and non elected dictators (who many would describe as our enemy) secretly using cash to influence our country?
If so you are not worth taking seriously.
I see people like you getting het up about conspiracy theories because you hate Brexit. You meanwhile are totally blind to the fact that it is Remainers at home and abroad who are gradually overturning the Brexit decision-I fear the home grown attack on democracy more than Putin any day.
Confirms that you can't be taken seriously. I will skip your nonsensical tirades in the future.
Newsnight persuades Arron Banks to go on tonight. Then Farage invites him and his bitch Wigmore onto his LBC show, so Banks pulls out of Newsnight. Easier option, eh, you fat slug. Carole Cadwalladr gets wind of this so tries to call up Farage's show. But mysteriously she cannot get through. So she gets a friend to call on her behalf, and...
So why are you not pushing for the British public to have the chance to clarify and confirm it? Are you trying to tell us Norway are in the EU or not?
because we already had a vote on it.....and the result was to leave fgs !!! You can't keep having vote after vote....do you expect the Government to keep coming back to the electorate every time they get an agreement on something from Mr Barnier.....and then going back to him telling him..."sorry, but 50.1% have just said that they want to remain in the CU but don't want jurisdiction by the ECJ....can we start again".
I hate the way the negotiations are going & if I had my way there would be a vote of no confidence in T May or let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations....with Farage there as well.
but that ain't going to happen. In my view the best thing would be that we leave with no deal.....just walk away & start from scratch. The UK and the EU are too big for nothing to happen. On 30th March 2019 the politicians would THEN have to take it seriously.....and not be just point scoring. Theres nothing like a dose of reality to make you come to your senses.
So why are you not pushing for the British public to have the chance to clarify and confirm it? Are you trying to tell us Norway are in the EU or not?
because we already had a vote on it.....and the result was to leave fgs !!! You can't keep having vote after vote....do you expect the Government to keep coming back to the electorate every time they get an agreement on something from Mr Barnier.....and then going back to him telling him..."sorry, but 50.1% have just said that they want to remain in the CU but don't want jurisdiction by the ECJ....can we start again".
I hate the way the negotiations are going & if I had my way there would be a vote of no confidence in T May or let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations....with Farage there as well.
but that ain't going to happen. In my view the best thing would be that we leave with no deal.....just walk away & start from scratch. The UK and the EU are too big for nothing to happen. On 30th March 2019 the politicians would THEN have to take it seriously.....and not be just point scoring. Theres nothing like a dose of reality to make you come to your senses.
"Let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations...."
Funniest line on Charlton Life. Ever.
I mean, the EU negotiators are just going to buckle immediately when that long streak of piss starts sneering at them, aren't they? Here's a tip mate, snooty fuckers like Rees-Mogg may well intimidate some of the great unwashed in England but the EU don't give a fuck if the UK sends, Rees-Mogg, Russell Grant or Pete Beale from East Enders, they have 27 votes and the UK has 1.
No surprise of course, yesterday we had the humiliation of hearing the Foreign Secretary complaining that we should have Donald Trump in there negotiating for us.
That's right people, we have reached the stage where Her Majesty's Government has no more ideas other than turning our entire future over to a fucking New York real-estate salesman.
So why are you not pushing for the British public to have the chance to clarify and confirm it? Are you trying to tell us Norway are in the EU or not?
because we already had a vote on it.....and the result was to leave fgs !!! You can't keep having vote after vote....do you expect the Government to keep coming back to the electorate every time they get an agreement on something from Mr Barnier.....and then going back to him telling him..."sorry, but 50.1% have just said that they want to remain in the CU but don't want jurisdiction by the ECJ....can we start again".
I hate the way the negotiations are going & if I had my way there would be a vote of no confidence in T May or let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations....with Farage there as well.
but that ain't going to happen. In my view the best thing would be that we leave with no deal.....just walk away & start from scratch. The UK and the EU are too big for nothing to happen. On 30th March 2019 the politicians would THEN have to take it seriously.....and not be just point scoring. Theres nothing like a dose of reality to make you come to your senses.
"Let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations...."
Funniest line on Charlton Life. Ever.
I mean, the EU negotiators are just going to buckle immediately when that long streak of piss starts sneering at them, aren't they? Here's a tip mate, snooty fuckers like Rees-Mogg may well intimidate some of the great unwashed in England but the EU don't give a fuck if the UK sends, Rees-Mogg, Russell Grant or Pete Beale from East Enders, they have 27 votes and the UK has 1.
No surprise of course, yesterday we had the humiliation of hearing the Foreign Secretary complaining that we should have Donald Trump in there negotiating for us.
That's right people, we have reached the stage where Her Majesty's Government has no more ideas other than turning our entire future over to a fucking New York real-estate salesman.
why am I not surprised that Rees-Mog is put down because of the way he talks....would you be saying the same thing if he talked like del-boy.
The guys got more brains than you've had hot dinners sunny-jim.
So why are you not pushing for the British public to have the chance to clarify and confirm it? Are you trying to tell us Norway are in the EU or not?
because we already had a vote on it.....and the result was to leave fgs !!! You can't keep having vote after vote....do you expect the Government to keep coming back to the electorate every time they get an agreement on something from Mr Barnier.....and then going back to him telling him..."sorry, but 50.1% have just said that they want to remain in the CU but don't want jurisdiction by the ECJ....can we start again".
I hate the way the negotiations are going & if I had my way there would be a vote of no confidence in T May or let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations....with Farage there as well.
but that ain't going to happen. In my view the best thing would be that we leave with no deal.....just walk away & start from scratch. The UK and the EU are too big for nothing to happen. On 30th March 2019 the politicians would THEN have to take it seriously.....and not be just point scoring. Theres nothing like a dose of reality to make you come to your senses.
"Let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations...."
Funniest line on Charlton Life. Ever.
I mean, the EU negotiators are just going to buckle immediately when that long streak of piss starts sneering at them, aren't they? Here's a tip mate, snooty fuckers like Rees-Mogg may well intimidate some of the great unwashed in England but the EU don't give a fuck if the UK sends, Rees-Mogg, Russell Grant or Pete Beale from East Enders, they have 27 votes and the UK has 1.
No surprise of course, yesterday we had the humiliation of hearing the Foreign Secretary complaining that we should have Donald Trump in there negotiating for us.
That's right people, we have reached the stage where Her Majesty's Government has no more ideas other than turning our entire future over to a fucking New York real-estate salesman.
why am I not surprised that Rees-Mog is put down because of the way he talks....would you be saying the same thing if he talked like del-boy.
The guys got more brains than you've had hot dinners sunny-jim.
He has an ability (demonstrated in recent weeks, when talking about borders and the WTO) to make confident assertions without any understanding of the facts. He's an expert of the soundbite, but lacks knowledge of detail (or, apparently, any interest).
And, I'm fairly sure that, unless he's some kind of Marvel supervillain, he is equipped with the same number of brains (one) as the rest of us.
So why are you not pushing for the British public to have the chance to clarify and confirm it? Are you trying to tell us Norway are in the EU or not?
because we already had a vote on it.....and the result was to leave fgs !!! You can't keep having vote after vote....do you expect the Government to keep coming back to the electorate every time they get an agreement on something from Mr Barnier.....and then going back to him telling him..."sorry, but 50.1% have just said that they want to remain in the CU but don't want jurisdiction by the ECJ....can we start again".
I hate the way the negotiations are going & if I had my way there would be a vote of no confidence in T May or let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations....with Farage there as well.
but that ain't going to happen. In my view the best thing would be that we leave with no deal.....just walk away & start from scratch. The UK and the EU are too big for nothing to happen. On 30th March 2019 the politicians would THEN have to take it seriously.....and not be just point scoring. Theres nothing like a dose of reality to make you come to your senses.
But we are leaving FGS! Who cares about your way - who cares about my way. We can't impose our ways on the country FGS!!!!!!!!!
So why are you not pushing for the British public to have the chance to clarify and confirm it? Are you trying to tell us Norway are in the EU or not?
because we already had a vote on it.....and the result was to leave fgs !!! You can't keep having vote after vote....do you expect the Government to keep coming back to the electorate every time they get an agreement on something from Mr Barnier.....and then going back to him telling him..."sorry, but 50.1% have just said that they want to remain in the CU but don't want jurisdiction by the ECJ....can we start again".
I hate the way the negotiations are going & if I had my way there would be a vote of no confidence in T May or let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations....with Farage there as well.
but that ain't going to happen. In my view the best thing would be that we leave with no deal.....just walk away & start from scratch. The UK and the EU are too big for nothing to happen. On 30th March 2019 the politicians would THEN have to take it seriously.....and not be just point scoring. Theres nothing like a dose of reality to make you come to your senses.
"Let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations...."
Funniest line on Charlton Life. Ever.
I mean, the EU negotiators are just going to buckle immediately when that long streak of piss starts sneering at them, aren't they? Here's a tip mate, snooty fuckers like Rees-Mogg may well intimidate some of the great unwashed in England but the EU don't give a fuck if the UK sends, Rees-Mogg, Russell Grant or Pete Beale from East Enders, they have 27 votes and the UK has 1.
No surprise of course, yesterday we had the humiliation of hearing the Foreign Secretary complaining that we should have Donald Trump in there negotiating for us.
That's right people, we have reached the stage where Her Majesty's Government has no more ideas other than turning our entire future over to a fucking New York real-estate salesman.
why am I not surprised that Rees-Mog is put down because of the way he talks....would you be saying the same thing if he talked like del-boy.
The guys got more brains than you've had hot dinners sunny-jim.
Like most privately educated, well spoken people I know he has *absolute confidence in his own assertions, these kind of people seem to be able to command respect and belief quite easily.
I would suspect this is partly because positions of influence and/or media exposure are often filled with people from this kind of background and large parts of the nation are convinced that this is how people talk who know what they are doing.
Despite having come across these people many times they still fool me for a while until you see that there is no substance behind what they say. I have worked with organisations that constantly appoint people like this despite having had their fingers burnt previously.
* whereas a lot of the ordinary people I have met in senior positions constantly question whether they have the right to be there or not or more worryingly do not seek out senior positions as they don't have the self belief.
Rees-Mogg is criticised for what he says - everybody who talks a bit funny or even has an accent is made fun off to a certain extent - but it is a completely different matter. If that tw*t ever became Prime Minister it would be time to get out of this once great country!
I'll take my steer on Rees-Mogg from Anna Soubry. A Tory who calls him and Boris Johnson what they are!
Comments
Surely we could correct the fault of the referendum and ask the people what they meant. Unless we are fearful of the answer they will give!
And being a democrat, if enough people change their minds, Brexit can be stopped democratically. But the question is hard or soft - both are ways of leaving and I say again, the public were not given this choice!
First leave took the cuddly NHS and promised it cash in exchange for voting leave. Then they said we can resolve details later. And finally they stated that the EU share of our exports was declining so we should focus on the rest of the world.
At the time leave failed to rule out a Norway model because of the simple arithmetic illustrated in a recent poll - they would have been hammered!
http://www.businessinsider.com/norway-style-soft-brexit-most-popular-outcome-among-british-people-opinium-poll-2018-6
So back in 2016 numbers and slogans convinced 52% of the electorate to vote leave. Since then we've seen Trump elected plus the EU has signed up FTAs with Canada and Japan.
So now we have the actual negotiations and all manner of blame narratives being rehearsed. Fortunately Parliament and the EU27 are dragging us back to a soft Brexit position inch by inch.
We are not leaving anything until 2021. Between now and then we shall see how the polls develop and what real options (as opposed to imaginary ones) are on the table. Assuming the EU continues to grow, it's a no brainer to stay close.
Of course a minority of around 30% want to leave everything. Just as a minority wish to overturn the referendum.
For what it's worth, I've long believed in "Brexit in name only" and that came about once May triggered article 50, some 15 months ago. We don't need to agree with Varoufakis and his stance on Greece to recognise his experience dealing with the EU. Ultimately it's Norway or nothing and Yanis V pointed this out within a week of Article 50.
It is surely true that most Brexiters would have wanted a hard Brexit - I don't argue that. But most of the British people want a soft one - that is clear also - if it is a choice between the two of course. The referendum could have been rigged to favour both sides but it wasn't because only one question was asked. The fact that a country like Norway is not in the EU and this is an accepted fact, means we could leave the EU maintaining a relationship like them! We could also leave with a hard Brexit, but nobody was asked this question.
I do agree with others that Brexit has to happen now, but do worry that the generation that will have to deal with its consequences should have some say in how it is delivered at least. Surely the democratically minded Leave voters shouldn't object to people exercising their opinion on what happens next after a properly informed national debate.
Politicians are elected by the electorate (sub-optimally, IMHO, because of First Past The Post), but they are not compelled to legislate in a given way. MPs do not seek their constituents' approval for each Parliamentary vote, and, although candidates stand on party platforms, they are elected as individuals, not selected from a Party list (which is why, for example, a politician can remain an MP on leaving their party).
For what it is worth, as the position of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party is that the UK is leaving the EU, insofar as that was a commitment to the electorate, both are complying with precisely that which was promised.
If the Conservative version of Brexit was more extreme than that of Labour, it's a fairly moot point, because, in the absence of a majority following the General Election, there is no evidence that Theresa May's version of Brexit satisfied the desire of the UK electorate.
There is no clear mandate for anything other than no longer being an EU member state.
Parliamentary scrutiny is an essential component of the UK version of democracy, in the absence of a clear Parliamentary majority, this system, effectively, demands that the Government seek alliances and compromises to bring forward legislation so Theresa May cannot stride forth as a Colossus vanquishing her opponents before her. The process around the Brexit votes, including the House of Lords' amendments are the British political settlement in action, as it is intended to work.
PS, for what it's worth, if there has to be , heaven forbid, a Brexit, the one that you say that nobody wants is precisely that with which I could perhaps reconcile myself.
On the one hand, there are those people who think that the people should have the final say. In order to ensure "democracy". This group supports a further referendum, to ensure that, now the voters have a better, clearer, deeper understanding of the impacts of Brexit, a fully informed decision can be made. Either we agree the terms of the deal and the people endorse it, so we move ahead; or we agree the terms of the deal and the people reject it, so we scrap the idea and remain.
The opposite view is that a referendum should be final and binding. So we vote once, and once only on decimalisation, proportional representation, Scottish independence, driving on the right, the tv licence, etc. We run the referendum, count the votes, declare the winner, stick with the result and move on. In this case, the European referendum of 1975 gave a clear indication that we should be *in* so we shouldn't revisit that decision.
It would be interesting to see which side most people - especially those that want us to leave - come down on. Is your preference to allow the people to have the final stay? Or to respect a referendum decision and not revisit it?
Newsnight persuades Arron Banks to go on tonight. Then Farage invites him and his bitch Wigmore onto his LBC show, so Banks pulls out of Newsnight. Easier option, eh, you fat slug. Carole Cadwalladr gets wind of this so tries to call up Farage's show. But mysteriously she cannot get through. So she gets a friend to call on her behalf, and...
I hate the way the negotiations are going & if I had my way there would be a vote of no confidence in T May or let Jacob Rees Mog be part of the negotiations....with Farage there as well.
but that ain't going to happen. In my view the best thing would be that we leave with no deal.....just walk away & start from scratch. The UK and the EU are too big for nothing to happen. On 30th March 2019 the politicians would THEN have to take it seriously.....and not be just point scoring. Theres nothing like a dose of reality to make you come to your senses.
Funniest line on Charlton Life. Ever.
I mean, the EU negotiators are just going to buckle immediately when that long streak of piss starts sneering at them, aren't they? Here's a tip mate, snooty fuckers like Rees-Mogg may well intimidate some of the great unwashed in England but the EU don't give a fuck if the UK sends, Rees-Mogg, Russell Grant or Pete Beale from East Enders, they have 27 votes and the UK has 1.
No surprise of course, yesterday we had the humiliation of hearing the Foreign Secretary complaining that we should have Donald Trump in there negotiating for us.
That's right people, we have reached the stage where Her Majesty's Government has no more ideas other than turning our entire future over to a fucking New York real-estate salesman.
The guys got more brains than you've had hot dinners sunny-jim.
And, I'm fairly sure that, unless he's some kind of Marvel supervillain, he is equipped with the same number of brains (one) as the rest of us.
I would suspect this is partly because positions of influence and/or media exposure are often filled with people from this kind of background and large parts of the nation are convinced that this is how people talk who know what they are doing.
Despite having come across these people many times they still fool me for a while until you see that there is no substance behind what they say. I have worked with organisations that constantly appoint people like this despite having had their fingers burnt previously.
* whereas a lot of the ordinary people I have met in senior positions constantly question whether they have the right to be there or not or more worryingly do not seek out senior positions as they don't have the self belief.
I'll take my steer on Rees-Mogg from Anna Soubry. A Tory who calls him and Boris Johnson what they are!