This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
animist wrote:it is a sign of the times that, despite its pro-Brexit bias and mission, Brexit Central news is now pretty often illustrating the problems involved in delivery of this strange beast. Apart from the WTO story, the others are casting doubt on one or other aspect of the Brexit project
Indeed. It's almost as if Brexiteers are trying to divert attention away from their failing fantasy by blaming anyone and everyone for their own inadequacies.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Do you think May should publish it all, coffee? That is what Parliament instructed her to do. Any idea why she might be a tad reticent in publishing it in full?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Beneath all the talk of “control” and “global Britain”, there is the germ of an extremely unpleasant nativism. Again, we pesky centrists are told to be quiet and to heed the concerns of those who have been “left behind”. But since there is not a shred of respectable evidence that immigration has had more than a marginal impact upon public service capacity, wage levels or net welfare costs, I am forced to conclude that there is now a sufficiency of Britons who just don’t much like people of foreign extraction, and certainly don’t want many more of them around the place.
So often one hears that the British people “were not consulted” about immigration levels. To which the answer is: oh yes you damn well were. Every time you insisted on a properly staffed NHS, on social care that was halfway decent, on a service economy that worked, on affordable decorators, on your Tesco and Amazon deliveries arriving on time. Each time you took that landscape for granted, you were complicit in the immigration policy that preceded the Brexit vote.
We live in a world defined by the economic, social and cultural interdependence of nation states. And those who promise that leaving the EU will deliver “control” are really promising something quite specific: a social and cultural reboot. As well as being morally contemptible, of course, this is also a complete impossibility. But those who pose as our leaders have allowed this absurd and horrible vision of Britain’s future to take root. Let us be honest about what this is all about. And then let those who are responsible take full ownership of whatever consequences lie ahead.
Call it bigotry. Call it xenophobia. Call it downright racism. But if the racist Brexiters don't like the white-skinned east Europeans coming over here and doing all those jobs that no one wants to do, they sure ain't going to like the Asians and Africans that we'll need to replace them with.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Going well for the Brexit troublemakers, isn't it?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Being 'indefinitely committed' to the Northern Irish backstop is a risk worth taking, says Attorney General Geoffrey Cox: Brexit News for Tuesday 4th December
TODAY'S HEADLINES
Being 'indefinitely committed' to the Northern Irish backstop is a risk worth taking, says Attorney General
Speaker agrees to a contempt debate against the Government over its refusal to publish legal advice
Theresa May to beg MPs to back her Brexit deal as top Tories reportedly give up hope of victory
Oliver Robbins clashes with Jacob Rees-Mogg as he defends 'uncomfortable' Brexit backstop
Immigration policy 'very unlikely' to be revealed before Brexit vote, says Sajid Javid
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
As publication of legal advice hardens opposition to her deal, the EU is reportedly prepared to offer May a lifeline by extending Article 50: Brexit News for Thursday 6th December
TODAY'S HEADLINES
Publication of legal advice hardens opposition to Brexit deal
EU reportedly prepared to offer May a lifeline by extending Article 50
Downing Street's attempt to woo Brexiteers with Irish backstop 'parliamentary lock' falls flat
DUP will be oppose the deal but not bring down the Government if deal is rejected
Unite leader warns Labour against backing second EU referendum
Government splurges more than £50k of taxpayers’ cash promoting May's Brexit deal on social media
coffee wrote:As publication of legal advice hardens opposition to her deal, the EU is reportedly prepared to offer May a lifeline by extending Article 50
What good's that going to do? There is no better deal on offer - even if the EU did concede a few cosmetic changes. The only way out of this fucking Tory mess is to just withdraw Article 50 and undo the damage that they've already caused.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
coffee wrote:As publication of legal advice hardens opposition to her deal, the EU is reportedly prepared to offer May a lifeline by extending Article 50
What good's that going to do? There is no better deal on offer - even if the EU did concede a few cosmetic changes. The only way out of this fucking Tory mess is to just withdraw Article 50 and undo the damage that they've already caused.
it would give some time for a second referendum, surely. which (assuming that Remain won, and the MPs need to get No-Deal removed from the options before such a vote) would appear more democratic than a simple denial by MPs of the people's vote in 2016
coffee wrote:Theresa May sends ministers across the country today to drum up Brexit deal support
ROFL! Support? Is she going to back a People's Vote then?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
i get a bit tired of the non-communication here. Coffee, and I think I can reasonably expect a simple answer to this question: do you approve of the May-EU deal? I would think that you do so, as the UK would, after the Transition Period and in the Age of the Backstop, not be compelled to conform to the EU's free movement of people principle
animist wrote:"do you approve of the May-EU deal?, no more free movement of people"
I think so, yes
Why?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
animist wrote:"do you approve of the May-EU deal?, no more free movement of people"
I think so, yes
Why?
I share this MP views.
BrexitCentral
@BrexitCentral
. @KwasiKwarteng "I've spent all my time, almost all my waking hours on the Withdrawal Agreement, and I said to Boris, 'the more I read the Agreement, the more I liked it'"