I refuse to believe we will ever allow 150km tailbacks.
93.2 miles, possibly, but 150km-never
PS-perhaps people might believe Cameron more if he hadn't done naff all until he had a book to flog. The numpty.
They will be big apparently.
What about ousting Boris, politicians resorting to a bit of honesty, referendum, then a general election?
Hmmmmmm .....Doubtful No Chance Highly unlikely (we've had one that still hasn't been implemented!) Very likely.... eventually
Why doubtful? Why highly unlikely, when the opposition parties who now seem united, are all in favour of a referendum, and now have a majority?
At least you agreed with two of my answers
BoJo is at least seen to be trying to deliver the result of the 2016 Referendum, probably why the Tories are ahead in the Polls.
I like your use of the word 'seem'. The opposition may all (or maybe not all, depending on which way the wind blows) be in favour of a referendum, but I think you will find there will be a General Election before any future referendum...... and why should we take notice of a second referendum, when the first hasn't been implemented?
A general election is inevitable, although it would appear that this would be unlikely to supply a solution to Brexit.
Leaving the EU without a deal could not under any circumstances, be viewed by many people as implementing the result of the 2016 referendum.
Some polls are showing Labour and the Tories fairly level. However the majority of polls show the expected result will be no overall majority for any party.
I don't understand your point about my use of the word seem?
All the opposition parties are clearly in favour of a second referendum.
The opposition parties will have a small window when they return to Parliament, where they could oust Boris and take control.
They would then be in a position to arrange a second referendum, and implement the result prior to a general election.
Assuming the referendum was a choice of leaving with a particular deal, or remaining, then the result would be implemented without any further negotiations, voting, or anyone having a further say.
The first referendum would be superseded by the second. This happens on a regular basis. People change their minds from one election to the next. Political Parties change their manifestos from one election to the next.
For instance if the majority voted in favour of remaining, then that would be the up to date will of the people.
However if the majority voted to leave with the deal, then this would confirm that the will of the people had not changed since 2016, and the result would be implemented.
Whatever the result it would become the new will of the people. Remain winning would demonstrate that people had changed their minds. Leave winning would be confirmation that they hadn't.
Assuming Boris respects the law, we have an extension until the end of January, the PM cant get a deal through the new Parliament, new legislation is passed stopping no deal yet again. What then?
A united opposition may see this as a real opportunity to get their way and sort the mess out.
Alternatively Boris is toast if he misses the October deadline. The law says he cant leave without a deal. He has lost his majority and is unlikely to get a deal through without opposition support. The one way he would be certain to get a deal through would be to add a confirmatory public vote. Although this will not be by any means something he would consider palatable, it may be his only means of surviving. Boris will put his survival above all else, including the good of the country, and his party.
Tories and Labour almost neck and neck - as conference season begins Results: Con 28%, Lab 27%, Lib Dem 20%, Brexit Party 13%, Green 5%. SAMPLE SIZE: 2,009 interviews. WHAT IT SHOWED: This slight outlier of a poll shows Labour and the Conservatives neck and neck as the parties head into the conference season
Opinium, September 11-13
Tories hold lead over Labour despite Parliament suspension Results: Con 37%, Lab 25%, Lib Dem 16%, Brexit Party 13%, Green 2%. SAMPLE SIZE: 2,002 interviews. WHAT IT SHOWED: Labour trail the Conservatives by 12 in the week Boris Johnson suspended Parliament. But despite performances like this Labour believe that opinion will move dramatically when an election is called - and voters’ minds are focussed.
Kantar, September 5-9
Tories and Labour slump - but Johnson holds a commanding lead Results: Con 38%, Lab 24%, Lib Dem 20%, Brexit Party 7%, Green 3%. SAMPLE SIZE: 1,144 interviews, online. WHAT IT SHOWED: The Kantar polls does not prompt voters for the Green Party or the Brexit Party, meaning their results may be slightly lower in this poll than in other methodologies. Both Labour and the Tories lost four points from the previous Kantar poll in August, the Lib Dems were up 5% and the Brexit Party 2%
These are the five most likely routes to a new Brexit referendum The logic still holds (and Dominic Cummings once agreed) that there is no way out of this without seeking the people’s approval
Johnson loses an election The PM bottles it MPs force a people’s vote
The first referendum was a simple Leave or Remain choice and the majority voted to leave.Any further referendum that takes place should not include a Remain choice,as that got defeated in the original vote.The only options should be on which type of deal to back.None of this 'up to date' nonsense or 'there's more people eligible to vote now' argument,following that scenario we'd be having a referendum every couple of years. The Remain choice should not even be on the table in any second referendum regardless of the Remainers outcry.
The first referendum was a simple Leave or Remain choice and the majority voted to leave.Any further referendum that takes place should not include a Remain choice,as that got defeated in the original vote.The only options should be on which type of deal to back.None of this 'up to date' nonsense or 'there's more people eligible to vote now' argument,following that scenario we'd be having a referendum every couple of years. The Remain choice should not even be on the table in any second referendum regardless of the Remainers outcry.
Since when does a democracy not allow people to change their minds?
We are just about to have our third general election in four years, nobody is kicking off about that.
I cant get it into my head that people think this is ok, when they are supposed to happen every five years.
Parliament have had three votes so far on the Withdrawal Agreement, with more to follow.
So we can have as many votes in Parliament as the MPs want, as many general elections as they see fit, yet the one thing that completely solves the problem is frowned upon.
Amazingly the people who it affects the most couldn't vote in the referendum. The EU citizens, some of whom have lived, worked, contributed,and made their homes here didn't get a vote. Some of whom have lived here for many years. There are around three and a half million of them. You would have expected them all to have voted remain. The leave vote winning majority was just over one million.
Boris Johnson 'surprised' by level of Irish border checks
But senior EU sources speaking to the Guardian confirmed that Johnson had expressed surprise during the lunch at the complexity of the situation, and that it appeared to have been a “bit of a reality check to hear it from EU officials”. Sources said it was not the case that Johnson had failed to understand the role of the shared customs territory in the Irish backstop but that it was the scale of checks that would still be necessary without such an arrangement that appeared to hit home. A second EU diplomat confirmed: “When the commission explained the technical challenges and enduring need for customs checks under the UK proposals, Johnson expressed surprise in the direction of his advisers.”
Boris Johnson ‘only recently realised full meaning of single market’, EU chief reportedly claims
Boris Johnson is said by an EU official to have “slumped in his chair” at a lunch in Luxembourg on Monday when the reality of how difficult it would be to strike a Brexit deal dawned on him. Mr Johnson is also said to have “understood the meaning of the single market” for the first time at the meeting, according to the Financial Times.
The first referendum was a simple Leave or Remain choice and the majority voted to leave.Any further referendum that takes place should not include a Remain choice,as that got defeated in the original vote.The only options should be on which type of deal to back.None of this 'up to date' nonsense or 'there's more people eligible to vote now' argument,following that scenario we'd be having a referendum every couple of years. The Remain choice should not even be on the table in any second referendum regardless of the Remainers outcry.
It doesn't seem like the PM was absolutely clear on what Brexit meant.
Consumers will not sacrifice food standards after Brexit, says Tesco boss
The head of Britain’s largest supermarket Tesco said consumers had no interest in lowering food standards to bring prices down after Brexit, and ruled out selling chlorine-washed chicken from the US.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Taking back control of our beer then?
Yes for sure. Mr WETHERSPOONS is selling British Beer at £1.99 a pint in many of his Pubs
Wouldn't be seen dead in one of his pubs.
Some of us can only afford to drink in his pubs. Always good to look for Value..... and I can assure you, they aren't half busy!
Maybe good value, but VERY DANGEROUS?
A pro-Brexit Conservative MP has been pictured wearing a police stab vest while with officers patrolling Rayleigh, a town in Essex. The photograph was taken in The Roebuck, a Wetherspoons pub on Rayleigh High Street.
Brexiteer Tory MP spotted wearing police uniform in Wetherspoons ‘We can confirm Mark Francois MP is not a police officer.’ Essex police force say in statement
Alongside a picture of the MP, one Twitter user wrote: “Walking around town and in and out of pubs, dressed as a police officer and wearing a stab vest.”
She added: “He was met with some ridicule in the pubs as you can probably imagine!”
Some questioned his choice of attire while one commenter asked: “Genuine question, can you be arrested for impersonating half a police officer?”
He joined our officers in Rayleigh to see the work they are doing in #Essex and we gave him the wrong jacket,” the force wrote on Twitter. Mr Francois, the deputy chair of the hardline European Research Group, is an ardent Brexiteer. “I was in the army. I wasn’t trained to lose,” he once said, during an interview about Brexit. It later emerged that he had served as an infantry officer in the Territorial Army during the Cold War.
The first referendum was a simple Leave or Remain choice and the majority voted to leave.Any further referendum that takes place should not include a Remain choice,as that got defeated in the original vote.The only options should be on which type of deal to back.None of this 'up to date' nonsense or 'there's more people eligible to vote now' argument,following that scenario we'd be having a referendum every couple of years. The Remain choice should not even be on the table in any second referendum regardless of the Remainers outcry.
I wonder what the majority would consider the most democratic option, if we were very close to the deadline, and forced to choose one of the following?
The first referendum was a simple Leave or Remain choice and the majority voted to leave.Any further referendum that takes place should not include a Remain choice,as that got defeated in the original vote.The only options should be on which type of deal to back.None of this 'up to date' nonsense or 'there's more people eligible to vote now' argument,following that scenario we'd be having a referendum every couple of years. The Remain choice should not even be on the table in any second referendum regardless of the Remainers outcry.
I wonder what the majority would consider the most democratic option, if we were very close to the deadline, and forced to choose one of the following?
No deal.
Revoke article 50.
Second referendum.
Without going over old ground again,the most democratic thing to do is to uphold the result of the referendum.Whether people voted leave or remain,whether they've now changed their views or not,to ignore the result goes against the basic fundamentals of a democracy.The question can't keep being changed or different options put forward,until the objectors get the result they crave.The country is roughly split so whichever option was to win a second referendum,we'll still be in the same situation.Accept the original vote and put all the time and effort in to finding a solution.The only options that should be offered are No Deal or Leave with a deal.
I refuse to believe we will ever allow 150km tailbacks.
93.2 miles, possibly, but 150km-never
PS-perhaps people might believe Cameron more if he hadn't done naff all until he had a book to flog. The numpty.
Do you think a reasonable Brexit is possible?
If you think in terms of Brexit as a series of choices, and the ballot paper had resembled an exam paper, we could have ended up with a better idea of what voters were in favour of, or not.
Although many voters would have been stumped by the questions, and ripped up their ballot papers.
This of course would have been impossible to contemplate.
An increasing number of the electorate now seem to favour leaving without a deal, despite the chaos that is guaranteed to follow.
This has been caused by the frustration involved in the three and a half year impasse since the referendum.
How long can we continue going around in circles?
The Irish border issue is incredible.
The EUs immediate solution was a NI only backstop.
Theresa claimed that they were the Conservative and Unionist Party, and that no British PM would ever be able to accept this.
We then moved to a whole of the UK backstop.
Parliament rejected this 3 times.
Boris has said he could never accept the UK backstop.
We now seemed to have gone full circle, and are again considering a NI only backstop.
The planned procedure was supposed to be, we pass the withdrawal agreement, leave the EU, move into the implementation period, negotiate the deal, implement the backstop only if negotiations weren't completed, and only until they were completed.
We would then escape from the backstop, and put in place the new trading arrangements.
This would have meant a Blind Brexit, as we would have left without knowing what our trading relationship might be.
Boris has said on a number of occasions that he is in favour of a Canada style free trade agreement.
This type of agreement will require a border.
So what is the point.
If we went through this rigmarole, before negotiating a deal that gave us Single Market access, and we remained in the Customs Union, it would be understandable, as no border would be required.
However to end up in the situation where we ended up, back to square one, and have to revisit the Irish border problem, or be stuck in the backstop seems senseless.
This whole process could surely only seem sensible if we ended up in a situation where an Irish border was not required.
Many of the fanatical Brexiteers voice the opinion that our future is best served by pursuing an independent policy.
This is not possible should we remain in the Customs Union.
Single Market access in addition to the Customs Union, allows us to continue with tariff free, frictionless trade.
Freedom of Movement is a condition of Single Market membership.
The EU is a rules based organisation.
We cant moan about the rules, because we helped formulate them.
We just want all the rights, with none of the obligations.
Whilst our idiotic politicians accuse the EU of intransigence.
It is worth pointing out that we have spent the time since the referendum, arguing over three conditions. The first two were solved fairly quickly, which were the amount of money we owe, and citizens rights. The third being the Irish border, which seems no closer to being resolved.
In fact we seem **** bent on finding a solution that merely recreates the same problem in the fairly near future.
The first referendum was a simple Leave or Remain choice and the majority voted to leave.Any further referendum that takes place should not include a Remain choice,as that got defeated in the original vote.The only options should be on which type of deal to back.None of this 'up to date' nonsense or 'there's more people eligible to vote now' argument,following that scenario we'd be having a referendum every couple of years. The Remain choice should not even be on the table in any second referendum regardless of the Remainers outcry.
I wonder what the majority would consider the most democratic option, if we were very close to the deadline, and forced to choose one of the following?
No deal.
Revoke article 50.
Second referendum.
Without going over old ground again,the most democratic thing to do is to uphold the result of the referendum.Whether people voted leave or remain,whether they've now changed their views or not,to ignore the result goes against the basic fundamentals of a democracy.The question can't keep being changed or different options put forward,until the objectors get the result they crave.The country is roughly split so whichever option was to win a second referendum,we'll still be in the same situation.Accept the original vote and put all the time and effort in to finding a solution.The only options that should be offered are No Deal or Leave with a deal.
Parliament have shown on 3 or 4 occasions that in the interests of the country they are not prepared to leave without a deal.
How long will it take to move on.
Or should we be arguing that we had a referendum in 1975.
I think you can argue about "in theory", or "in an ideal world", solutions, or accept the reality of where we are.
I think you can blame politicians, and ignore the difficulties.
If you were a politician where would your loyalties lie?
What would be most important to you?
Your own conscience, your party, your constituents, your country, or the UK?
I really think that at some point, may be not too far in the future politicians could be faced with the choice that I laid out.
I don't think that leaving with no deal, or revoking article 50 would further democracy in this country.
However people like Dominic Raab the former Brexit Secretary, who I consider a fanatical Brexiteer has said on a number of occasions that he would have preferred to remain in the EU, than accept Theresa Mays deal.
Assuming he is telling the truth, in a referendum on TMs deal or remain, he is a leave voter that would have voted remain.
So the choices are not clear cut, and peoples views change due to the options in front of them.
In 1973 we joined the EU without a vote. In 1975 we had a vote, the result of which we had already implemented 2 years before. In 2016 (after 41 years of campaigning for a 2nd referendum) we promised to implement the result of a 2nd referendum. Instead of implementing the vote before even having one, we (for a variety of reasons) have failed to do what we promised. You believe having another vote without implementing the result of 2016 would be a) democratic, and b) resolve, as opposed to intensify, the division in this country.
I agree with nearly everything else you write on this topic. But a 2nd referendum would be a disaster. Having a vote on deal/no deal, or Canada/Norway would take us forward in a positive, and democratic, way.
All that the first Referendum told us is that public opinion can be swayed by a load of lying b------s signing off a hymn sheet deviously prepared by people with a hidden agenda.
Is this the depth to which British politics has descended?
Can this possibly be described as the finest democracy there is?
In 1973 we joined the EU without a vote. In 1975 we had a vote, the result of which we had already implemented 2 years before. In 2016 (after 41 years of campaigning for a 2nd referendum) we promised to implement the result of a 2nd referendum. Instead of implementing the vote before even having one, we (for a variety of reasons) have failed to do what we promised. You believe having another vote without implementing the result of 2016 would be a) democratic, and b) resolve, as opposed to intensify, the division in this country.
I agree with nearly everything else you write on this topic. But a 2nd referendum would be a disaster. Having a vote on deal/no deal, or Canada/Norway would take us forward in a positive, and democratic, way.
I just think that there are a number of much worse options that may be chosen.
I also don't think that you cant ignore what stands in the way of what you consider an acceptable solution.
I am interested in other peoples thought processes, where those that think another referendum is wrong, yet it seems they are prepared to condone any number of general elections, irrespective of the fact that another general election may well solve nothing.
If as expected the next one results in another Hung Parliament, and changes nothing. Would you then suggest yet another, which may have the same effect.
During my working life, I was faced with many problems, as I am sure many people are. My solutions were always based on measures that actually solved the problem.
These solutions were not always absolutely fair, but they were always a means to solve a particular problem.
I could not have survived in my job, had I implemented solutions that were based on fairness alone, that didn't actually fully solve the problem.
From all sides I can hear many suggestions, that may be described as the will of the people, democratic, etc etc, that don't move us any further forward.
These haven't changed during the last three and a half years.
A referendum would clearly provide a definitive solution, and an end to the problem.
Yet the current "democratic", "will of the people", going around in circles gets us nowhere.
You would think that the endless cycle of extension, no agreement, a vote against no deal, will end at some point at one of the more extreme solutions, rather than a good outcome.
Its a bit like the four steps rule in football. It was meant to stop goalkeepers wasting time.
Only now we are saying lets have another general election. What if that solves nothing? Have another one? And another one?
I could live out the rest of my life with us extending article 50, the only thing being agreed in Parliament is that no deal is unacceptable, and having another general election, and another.
We will all end up dizzy.
I think you are being extremely optimistic to think that any solution, will heal the divisions in this country.
The overwhelming majority will think that leaving with no deal is the disaster, and those that currently don't would soon come around to that way of thinking subsequently to it happening.
All that the first Referendum told us is that public opinion can be swayed by a load of lying b------s signing off a hymn sheet deviously prepared by people with a hidden agenda.
Is this the depth to which British politics has descended?
Can this possibly be described as the finest democracy there is?
On a side note,now that the Liberal Democrats have firmly stated their plans to revoke article 50,will the 17 million remain voters back that party,as that's what they've been campaigning for,for the last 3 years?
On a side note,now that the Liberal Democrats have firmly stated their plans to revoke article 50,will the 17 million remain voters back that party,as that's what they've been campaigning for,for the last 3 years?
The Lib Dem position changed at their Conference. Up until now they have been just in favour of a second referendum. They took the view that they would in a general election campaign, support the revocation of article 50, but up until then continue to support a referendum. Their opinion is that if this was the policy they stood on, that everyone who voted for them, would be in favour. On the face of it, some may consider this less democratic than a second referendum. Although I think that the fact that all voters would have been given prior warning is sufficient. As I have said previously, it seems logical that the Tories and the Brexit Party are likely to be supported by the leave half of the electorate. The split may well depend on whether the Tories get us out by the end of October or not. The Brexit Party are likely to get a much bigger share if they fail, and die a death if they succeed. The Lib Dems, and Labour are likely to share the remain half of the votes. The split may well depend on the campaign, and whether Labour continue to shoot themselves in the foot. They definitely wont all vote for the Lib Dems. I will see it as a missed opportunity for the opposition parties, if they don't act in October, before a general election.
The experts say that based on the above it is unlikely that any party will gain an overall majority.
Comments
Leaving the EU without a deal could not under any circumstances, be viewed by many people as implementing the result of the 2016 referendum.
Some polls are showing Labour and the Tories fairly level. However the majority of polls show the expected result will be no overall majority for any party.
I don't understand your point about my use of the word seem?
All the opposition parties are clearly in favour of a second referendum.
The opposition parties will have a small window when they return to Parliament, where they could oust Boris and take control.
They would then be in a position to arrange a second referendum, and implement the result prior to a general election.
Assuming the referendum was a choice of leaving with a particular deal, or remaining, then the result would be implemented without any further negotiations, voting, or anyone having a further say.
The first referendum would be superseded by the second. This happens on a regular basis. People change their minds from one election to the next. Political Parties change their manifestos from one election to the next.
For instance if the majority voted in favour of remaining, then that would be the up to date will of the people.
However if the majority voted to leave with the deal, then this would confirm that the will of the people had not changed since 2016, and the result would be implemented.
Whatever the result it would become the new will of the people. Remain winning would demonstrate that people had changed their minds. Leave winning would be confirmation that they hadn't.
Assuming Boris respects the law, we have an extension until the end of January, the PM cant get a deal through the new Parliament, new legislation is passed stopping no deal yet again. What then?
A united opposition may see this as a real opportunity to get their way and sort the mess out.
Alternatively Boris is toast if he misses the October deadline. The law says he cant leave without a deal. He has lost his majority and is unlikely to get a deal through without opposition support. The one way he would be certain to get a deal through would be to add a confirmatory public vote. Although this will not be by any means something he would consider palatable, it may be his only means of surviving. Boris will put his survival above all else, including the good of the country, and his party.
Tories and Labour almost neck and neck - as conference season begins
Results: Con 28%, Lab 27%, Lib Dem 20%, Brexit Party 13%, Green 5%.
SAMPLE SIZE: 2,009 interviews.
WHAT IT SHOWED: This slight outlier of a poll shows Labour and the Conservatives neck and neck as the parties head into the conference season
Opinium, September 11-13
Tories hold lead over Labour despite Parliament suspension
Results: Con 37%, Lab 25%, Lib Dem 16%, Brexit Party 13%, Green 2%.
SAMPLE SIZE: 2,002 interviews.
WHAT IT SHOWED: Labour trail the Conservatives by 12 in the week Boris Johnson suspended Parliament. But despite performances like this Labour believe that opinion will move dramatically when an election is called - and voters’ minds are focussed.
Kantar, September 5-9
Tories and Labour slump - but Johnson holds a commanding lead
Results: Con 38%, Lab 24%, Lib Dem 20%, Brexit Party 7%, Green 3%.
SAMPLE SIZE: 1,144 interviews, online.
WHAT IT SHOWED: The Kantar polls does not prompt voters for the Green Party or the Brexit Party, meaning their results may be slightly lower in this poll than in other methodologies. Both Labour and the Tories lost four points from the previous Kantar poll in August, the Lib Dems were up 5% and the Brexit Party 2%
The logic still holds (and Dominic Cummings once agreed) that there is no way out of this without seeking the people’s approval
Johnson loses an election
The PM bottles it
MPs force a people’s vote
PM gets a deal
Johnson quits or is sacked
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-referendum-boris-johnson-vote-election-people-a9100441.html
We are just about to have our third general election in four years, nobody is kicking off about that.
I cant get it into my head that people think this is ok, when they are supposed to happen every five years.
Parliament have had three votes so far on the Withdrawal Agreement, with more to follow.
So we can have as many votes in Parliament as the MPs want, as many general elections as they see fit, yet the one thing that completely solves the problem is frowned upon.
Some of whom have lived here for many years.
There are around three and a half million of them.
You would have expected them all to have voted remain.
The leave vote winning majority was just over one million.
But senior EU sources speaking to the Guardian confirmed that Johnson had expressed surprise during the lunch at the complexity of the situation, and that it appeared to have been a “bit of a reality check to hear it from EU officials”.
Sources said it was not the case that Johnson had failed to understand the role of the shared customs territory in the Irish backstop but that it was the scale of checks that would still be necessary without such an arrangement that appeared to hit home.
A second EU diplomat confirmed: “When the commission explained the technical challenges and enduring need for customs checks under the UK proposals, Johnson expressed surprise in the direction of his advisers.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/boris-johnson-surprised-by-level-of-irish-border-checks/ar-AAHtPOk?ocid=spartanntp
Boris Johnson ‘only recently realised full meaning of single market’, EU chief reportedly claims
Boris Johnson is said by an EU official to have “slumped in his chair” at a lunch in Luxembourg on Monday when the reality of how difficult it would be to strike a Brexit deal dawned on him.
Mr Johnson is also said to have “understood the meaning of the single market” for the first time at the meeting, according to the Financial Times.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/eu-chief-claims-boris-johnson-only-recently-realised-full-meaning-of-single-market-094503411.html
It doesn't seem like the PM was absolutely clear on what Brexit meant.
He was the leader of the leave campaign.
The head of Britain’s largest supermarket Tesco said consumers had no interest in lowering food standards to bring prices down after Brexit, and ruled out selling chlorine-washed chicken from the US.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/consumers-will-not-sacrifice-food-standards-after-brexit-says-tesco-boss/ar-AAHuf9o?ocid=spartanntp
Maybe good value, but VERY DANGEROUS?
A pro-Brexit Conservative MP has been pictured wearing a police stab vest while with officers patrolling Rayleigh, a town in Essex.
The photograph was taken in The Roebuck, a Wetherspoons pub on Rayleigh High Street.
Brexiteer Tory MP spotted wearing police uniform in Wetherspoons
‘We can confirm Mark Francois MP is not a police officer.’ Essex police force say in statement
Alongside a picture of the MP, one Twitter user wrote: “Walking around town and in and out of pubs, dressed as a police officer and wearing a stab vest.”
She added: “He was met with some ridicule in the pubs as you can probably imagine!”
Some questioned his choice of attire while one commenter asked: “Genuine question, can you be arrested for impersonating half a police officer?”
He joined our officers in Rayleigh to see the work they are doing in #Essex and we gave him the wrong jacket,” the force wrote on Twitter.
Mr Francois, the deputy chair of the hardline European Research Group, is an ardent Brexiteer.
“I was in the army. I wasn’t trained to lose,” he once said, during an interview about Brexit.
It later emerged that he had served as an infantry officer in the Territorial Army during the Cold War.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mark-francois-essex-police-vest-wetherspoons-rayleigh-a9110661.html
No deal.
Revoke article 50.
Second referendum.
If you think in terms of Brexit as a series of choices, and the ballot paper had resembled an exam paper, we could have ended up with a better idea of what voters were in favour of, or not.
Although many voters would have been stumped by the questions, and ripped up their ballot papers.
This of course would have been impossible to contemplate.
An increasing number of the electorate now seem to favour leaving without a deal, despite the chaos that is guaranteed to follow.
This has been caused by the frustration involved in the three and a half year impasse since the referendum.
How long can we continue going around in circles?
The Irish border issue is incredible.
The EUs immediate solution was a NI only backstop.
Theresa claimed that they were the Conservative and Unionist Party, and that no British PM would ever be able to accept this.
We then moved to a whole of the UK backstop.
Parliament rejected this 3 times.
Boris has said he could never accept the UK backstop.
We now seemed to have gone full circle, and are again considering a NI only backstop.
The planned procedure was supposed to be, we pass the withdrawal agreement, leave the EU, move into the implementation period, negotiate the deal, implement the backstop only if negotiations weren't completed, and only until they were completed.
We would then escape from the backstop, and put in place the new trading arrangements.
This would have meant a Blind Brexit, as we would have left without knowing what our trading relationship might be.
Boris has said on a number of occasions that he is in favour of a Canada style free trade agreement.
This type of agreement will require a border.
So what is the point.
If we went through this rigmarole, before negotiating a deal that gave us Single Market access, and we remained in the Customs Union, it would be understandable, as no border would be required.
However to end up in the situation where we ended up, back to square one, and have to revisit the Irish border problem, or be stuck in the backstop seems senseless.
This whole process could surely only seem sensible if we ended up in a situation where an Irish border was not required.
Many of the fanatical Brexiteers voice the opinion that our future is best served by pursuing an independent policy.
This is not possible should we remain in the Customs Union.
Single Market access in addition to the Customs Union, allows us to continue with tariff free, frictionless trade.
Freedom of Movement is a condition of Single Market membership.
The EU is a rules based organisation.
We cant moan about the rules, because we helped formulate them.
We just want all the rights, with none of the obligations.
Whilst our idiotic politicians accuse the EU of intransigence.
It is worth pointing out that we have spent the time since the referendum, arguing over three conditions. The first two were solved fairly quickly, which were the amount of money we owe, and citizens rights. The third being the Irish border, which seems no closer to being resolved.
In fact we seem **** bent on finding a solution that merely recreates the same problem in the fairly near future.
How long will it take to move on.
Or should we be arguing that we had a referendum in 1975.
I think you can argue about "in theory", or "in an ideal world", solutions, or accept the reality of where we are.
I think you can blame politicians, and ignore the difficulties.
If you were a politician where would your loyalties lie?
What would be most important to you?
Your own conscience, your party, your constituents, your country, or the UK?
I really think that at some point, may be not too far in the future politicians could be faced with the choice that I laid out.
I don't think that leaving with no deal, or revoking article 50 would further democracy in this country.
However people like Dominic Raab the former Brexit Secretary, who I consider a fanatical Brexiteer has said on a number of occasions that he would have preferred to remain in the EU, than accept Theresa Mays deal.
Assuming he is telling the truth, in a referendum on TMs deal or remain, he is a leave voter that would have voted remain.
So the choices are not clear cut, and peoples views change due to the options in front of them.
In 1973 we joined the EU without a vote.
In 1975 we had a vote, the result of which we had already implemented 2 years before.
In 2016 (after 41 years of campaigning for a 2nd referendum) we promised to implement the result of a 2nd referendum.
Instead of implementing the vote before even having one, we (for a variety of reasons) have failed to do what we promised.
You believe having another vote without implementing the result of 2016 would be a) democratic, and b) resolve, as opposed to intensify, the division in this country.
I agree with nearly everything else you write on this topic. But a 2nd referendum would be a disaster. Having a vote on deal/no deal, or Canada/Norway would take us forward in a positive, and democratic, way.
Is this the depth to which British politics has descended?
Can this possibly be described as the finest democracy there is?
I also don't think that you cant ignore what stands in the way of what you consider an acceptable solution.
I am interested in other peoples thought processes, where those that think another referendum is wrong, yet it seems they are prepared to condone any number of general elections, irrespective of the fact that another general election may well solve nothing.
If as expected the next one results in another Hung Parliament, and changes nothing. Would you then suggest yet another, which may have the same effect.
During my working life, I was faced with many problems, as I am sure many people are. My solutions were always based on measures that actually solved the problem.
These solutions were not always absolutely fair, but they were always a means to solve a particular problem.
I could not have survived in my job, had I implemented solutions that were based on fairness alone, that didn't actually fully solve the problem.
From all sides I can hear many suggestions, that may be described as the will of the people, democratic, etc etc, that don't move us any further forward.
These haven't changed during the last three and a half years.
A referendum would clearly provide a definitive solution, and an end to the problem.
Yet the current "democratic", "will of the people", going around in circles gets us nowhere.
You would think that the endless cycle of extension, no agreement, a vote against no deal, will end at some point at one of the more extreme solutions, rather than a good outcome.
Its a bit like the four steps rule in football. It was meant to stop goalkeepers wasting time.
Only now we are saying lets have another general election. What if that solves nothing? Have another one? And another one?
I could live out the rest of my life with us extending article 50, the only thing being agreed in Parliament is that no deal is unacceptable, and having another general election, and another.
We will all end up dizzy.
I think you are being extremely optimistic to think that any solution, will heal the divisions in this country.
The overwhelming majority will think that leaving with no deal is the disaster, and those that currently don't would soon come around to that way of thinking subsequently to it happening.
Up until now they have been just in favour of a second referendum.
They took the view that they would in a general election campaign, support the revocation of article 50, but up until then continue to support a referendum.
Their opinion is that if this was the policy they stood on, that everyone who voted for them, would be in favour.
On the face of it, some may consider this less democratic than a second referendum.
Although I think that the fact that all voters would have been given prior warning is sufficient.
As I have said previously, it seems logical that the Tories and the Brexit Party are likely to be supported by the leave half of the electorate.
The split may well depend on whether the Tories get us out by the end of October or not.
The Brexit Party are likely to get a much bigger share if they fail, and die a death if they succeed.
The Lib Dems, and Labour are likely to share the remain half of the votes.
The split may well depend on the campaign, and whether Labour continue to shoot themselves in the foot.
They definitely wont all vote for the Lib Dems.
I will see it as a missed opportunity for the opposition parties, if they don't act in October, before a general election.
The experts say that based on the above it is unlikely that any party will gain an overall majority.
Back to square one?