Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

It is really simple. Extend article 50 or revoke it until we are in a better position to determine how exactly we will negotiate this incredibly complex situation. 

 

Two years with all the political fractures in the UK just isn't enough. We need to sort out our own house before moving onto the will of the people. 

 

The EU say's there is no renegotiation, so what is the point in the UK extending article 50 when the EU is refusing to discuss the withdrawal agreement let alone open it up again, as for revoking article 50, I think that time has come and gone, I think there is so much mistrust now on both sides there is no way the UK & the EU could just forget brexit ever happened and return to how things were before the referendum, also remember the two years is a EU rule not a UK one, it's the EU which set that time frame.

[Cade]

Who stands to lose more from a No Deal situation?

 

The EU, who just signed massive trade deals with Canada, Japan and South Korea, forming a trade network comprising of over 1/3 of Global GDP?

or

The UK, which is on the verge of having to rely on steep WTO tariffs with every nation on earth?

 

 

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The EU say's there is no renegotiation, so what is the point in the UK extending article 50 when the EU is refusing to discuss the withdrawal agreement let alone open it up again, as for revoking article 50, I think that time has come and gone, I think there is so much mistrust now on both sides there is no way the UK & the EU could just forget brexit ever happened and return to how things were before the referendum, also remember the two years is a EU rule not a UK one, it's the EU which set that time frame.

 

There's very good reason, so we have time to make the arrangements needed for a no deal brexit, time to replace the IT systems, print the forms, arrange the myriad logistics. Time to at least discuss it properly instead of blindly diving into this cluster**** situation.

[AlimOzturk]

19 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The EU say's there is no renegotiation, so what is the point in the UK extending article 50 when the EU is refusing to discuss the withdrawal agreement let alone open it up again, as for revoking article 50, I think that time has come and gone, I think there is so much mistrust now on both sides there is no way the UK & the EU could just forget brexit ever happened and return to how things were before the referendum, also remember the two years is a EU rule not a UK one, it's the EU which set that time frame.

 

The EU wouldn't have a choice in the matter. It has already been ruled we can revoke article 50. We could take the time to bring back stability in the UK, get much stronger people in charge with a fresh perspective of the whole situation and come back to the negotiation table with a stronger hand hoefully. Get the DUP to **** for starters, get trade deals sorted before triggering article 50, stock pile essential medicines, sort the future of EU residents and UK ex pats...the essential stuff that should have already been sorted. 

 

The referendum said we must leave the EU - it didn't say when. Why the **** are we rushing these things? Why as a general public are we so desperate to resolve this with utter lunatics running the show? 

 

This has all been a political power grab from arseholes like May, Gove, Boris, Jacob Reese Mogg and people like Corbyn who won't admit to being a  EU sceptic boil my blood. Why should we jump off the edge.of the cliff with these pricks. Bizzare

Edited February 7, 2019 by AlimOzturk

[JAYEL]

18 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The EU say's there is no renegotiation, so what is the point in the UK extending article 50 when the EU is refusing to discuss the withdrawal agreement let alone open it up again, as for revoking article 50, I think that time has come and gone, I think there is so much mistrust now on both sides there is no way the UK & the EU could just forget brexit ever happened and return to how things were before the referendum, also remember the two years is a EU rule not a UK one, it's the EU which set that time frame.

Saved me typing. ?

 

Also EU playing games hoping we stay in

 

They need telt

 

we voted leave deal or no deal

[sairyinthat]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Wasn't that the deal that May had "successfully" negotiated?  A soft(ish) way?

 

It was the Brexiteer loons that rejected it.  When that was know, the opposition opposed it too.

 

Had it been agreed we'd have left already!

 

As you are in favour of Brexit, what do you want us to achieve from our exit negotiations?

Certainly in favour,what I want out of it lets wait until the political dances are over but I defo don't want the spivs sliding  smuggled goods over an unmanned border.

[sairyinthat]

2 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

?

 

They were planning for No Deal  a year ago. 

and they are bang on course for it.

[sairyinthat]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

"How are negotiations going, guys?"

 

Wait till I have twirled them round a few times they will be that dizzy they won't know what week it is.

[sairyinthat]

2 hours ago, XB52 said:

It is not their choice. They have made the deal, agreed by the Tories. Up to Westminster what happens now, nothing to do with the EU

just a matter of time before their climbdown I'm thinking.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

38 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

There's very good reason, so we have time to make the arrangements needed for a no deal brexit, time to replace the IT systems, print the forms, arrange the myriad logistics. Time to at least discuss it properly instead of blindly diving into this cluster**** situation.

 

Seem to recall the EU urging the UK to trigger article 50, telling us to get on with it and knowing full well that there was a 2 year time frame in order to get things done.  In saying that the UK should have been able to have the logistical things you mention above ready within that time frame.

[sairyinthat]

49 minutes ago, Cade said:

Who stands to lose more from a No Deal situation?

 

The EU, who just signed massive trade deals with Canada, Japan and South Korea, forming a trade network comprising of over 1/3 of Global GDP?

or

The UK, which is on the verge of having to rely on steep WTO tariffs with every nation on earth?

 

 

You seriously think the UK are likely to lose from a No Deal? Get real EU is losing it's largest customer and the Uk government are not into self harm.

[Boris]

11 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

You seriously think the UK are likely to lose from a No Deal? Get real EU is losing it's largest customer and the Uk government are not into self harm.

Isn't the eu our largest customer too? 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Seem to recall the EU urging the UK to trigger article 50, telling us to get on with it and knowing full well that there was a 2 year time frame in order to get things done.  In saying that the UK should have been able to have the logistical things you mention above ready within that time frame.

I don't see how the first part's relevant though mate, we're not ready and we're not going to be ready no matter what's gone before.

 

It would be really foolhardy to leave the EU at the end of March, this is a time for careful, considered thought and responsible actions. It's the biggest thing that's happened to this country in decades, and people are going "**** it let's dive in" with zero apparent consideration of the potential implications, and don't get me started in the ****ing politicians. 

 

"It's an opportunity" - not for the weakest in our society it isn't, any squeeze affects them the worst and there would be plenty squeeze from diving out in March. It's time we started acting like a responsible democracy that cares about the population, that takes it's time to reach sensible conclusions instead of just reacting to the angriest and loudest voices.

[Boris]

24 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

Certainly in favour,what I want out of it lets wait until the political dances are over but I defo don't want the spivs sliding  smuggled goods over an unmanned border.

So would remaining in a customs union be OK for you? 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

I don't see how the first part's relevant though mate, we're not ready and we're not going to be ready no matter what's gone before.

 

It would be really foolhardy to leave the EU at the end of March, this is a time for careful, considered thought and responsible actions. It's the biggest thing that's happened to this country in decades, and people are going "**** it let's dive in" with zero apparent consideration of the potential implications, and don't get me started in the ****ing politicians. 

 

"It's an opportunity" - not for the weakest in our society it isn't, any squeeze affects them the worst and there would be plenty squeeze from diving out in March. It's time we started acting like a responsible democracy that cares about the population, that takes it's time to reach sensible conclusions instead of just reacting to the angriest and loudest voices.

 

Chapeau! 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

36 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

The EU wouldn't have a choice in the matter. It has already been ruled we can revoke article 50. We could take the time to bring back stability in the UK, get much stronger people in charge with a fresh perspective of the whole situation and come back to the negotiation table with a stronger hand hoefully. Get the DUP to **** for starters, get trade deals sorted before triggering article 50, stock pile essential medicines, sort the future of EU residents and UK ex pats...the essential stuff that should have already been sorted. 

 

The referendum said we must leave the EU - it didn't say when. Why the **** are we rushing these things? Why as a general public are we so desperate to resolve this with utter lunatics running the show? 

 

This has all been a political power grab from arseholes like May, Gove, Boris, Jacob Reese Mogg and people like Corbyn who won't admit to being a  EU sceptic boil my blood. Why should we jump off the edge.of the cliff with these pricks. Bizzare

 

Like I said above the UK was coming under pressure from the EU and I think Corbyn was banging on about triggering AR50 as well (could be wrong about that though).

3 times the UK government wanted a unilateral agreement on citizens rights, which 3 times Merkel refused to discuss it until AR50 was triggered.

The UK has given assurances that deal or no deal EU citizens rights will be protected, so why does this subject keep coming up, unless people don't believe the assurances being made by the UK, which comes down to what I said about the mistrust factor.

EU rules prevent the UK from negotiating far less entering trade deals on it's own whilst still being a member of the EU, so we couldn't get trade deals sorted before we left.  The only thing which we could have done which you list above is to stockpile medicines, however they do have a shelf life so it isn't really practicable to stockpile that many for too long.

 

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

So would remaining in a customs union be OK for you? 

It was made pretty clear right from the off we'd be leaving the custom Union though. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I don't see how the first part's relevant though mate, we're not ready and we're not going to be ready no matter what's gone before.

 

It would be really foolhardy to leave the EU at the end of March, this is a time for careful, considered thought and responsible actions. It's the biggest thing that's happened to this country in decades, and people are going "**** it let's dive in" with zero apparent consideration of the potential implications, and don't get me started in the ****ing politicians. 

 

"It's an opportunity" - not for the weakest in our society it isn't, any squeeze affects them the worst and there would be plenty squeeze from diving out in March. It's time we started acting like a responsible democracy that cares about the population, that takes it's time to reach sensible conclusions instead of just reacting to the angriest and loudest voices.

 

We can agree on one thing ****ing politicians, enough said about them.

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

It was made pretty clear right from the off we'd be leaving the custom Union though. 

By whom? May? But her deal is dead. 

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Like I said above the UK was coming under pressure from the EU and I think Corbyn was banging on about triggering AR50 as well (could be wrong about that though).

3 times the UK government wanted a unilateral agreement on citizens rights, which 3 times Merkel refused to discuss it until AR50 was triggered.

The UK has given assurances that deal or no deal EU citizens rights will be protected, so why does this subject keep coming up, unless people don't believe the assurances being made by the UK, which comes down to what I said about the mistrust factor.

EU rules prevent the UK from negotiating far less entering trade deals on it's own whilst still being a member of the EU, so we couldn't get trade deals sorted before we left.  The only thing which we could have done which you list above is to stockpile medicines, however they do have a shelf life so it isn't really practicable to stockpile that many for too long.

 

I thought the eu had stated that there could be no negotiation prior to A50 being triggered. So any offers from May would be naturally rebuffed. 

 

May should have had her ducks in a row then triggered A50, but Tory hubris, imo, wouldn't let her. 

[Dawnrazor]

4 minutes ago, Boris said:

By whom? May? But her deal is dead. 

Long before that Boris, Cameron and Osborne were on TV numerous times stating that leaving meant leaving the customs union. 

[Boris]

10 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Long before that Boris, Cameron and Osborne were on TV numerous times stating that leaving meant leaving the customs union. 

But in reality it doesn't, does it? 

Eg Norway, Switzerland etc. 

Plus anything those three say could mean something else five minutes later! 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

13 minutes ago, Boris said:

I thought the eu had stated that there could be no negotiation prior to A50 being triggered. So any offers from May would be naturally rebuffed. 

 

May should have had her ducks in a row then triggered A50, but Tory hubris, imo, wouldn't let her. 

 

I believe May wanted citizens rights not to be included in the formal negotiations, that they be seperate and therefore could be discussed outwith A50 being triggered.

[Dawnrazor]

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

But in reality it doesn't, does it? 

Eg Norway, Switzerland etc. 

Plus anything those three say could mean something else five minutes later! 

It's was stated time and again that voting leave meant leaving the single market, EU, customs union, people knew that and voted leave. 

[IMac]

Just now, Dawnrazor said:

It's was stated time and again that voting leave meant leaving the single market, EU, customs union, people knew that and voted leave. 

I think you will find that was project fear.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

But in reality it doesn't, does it? 

Eg Norway, Switzerland etc. 

Plus anything those three say could mean something else five minutes later! 

 

You could say that of any politician, not just those three.

[Jamboelite]

42 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

You seriously think the UK are likely to lose from a No Deal? Get real EU is losing it's largest customer and the Uk government are not into self harm.

Not into self harm tou have to be kidding this is the very definition of it.

[sairyinthat]

30 minutes ago, Boris said:

So would remaining in a customs union be OK for you? 

Would it buggery  they would have us by the knackers hence the welcome for the clown Corbyns letter and soft brexit.Oot and make them keep the hunners of thousands of refugees they invited into their continent an Corbyns  future voters.

[Dawnrazor]

8 minutes ago, IMac said:

I think you will find that was project fear.

Eh? It was stated we were leaving and we're leaving and that's "project fear"? 

[sairyinthat]

37 minutes ago, Boris said:

Isn't the eu our largest customer too? 

Naw were their largest prisoner and are trying to keep it so and getting aided by that slippery slug Corbyn

[sairyinthat]

14 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Not into self harm tou have to be kidding this is the very definition of it.

Amazing folks ways of thinking,see if leaving would be bad then why would the Euro politicians be hurling abuse as they are,Odd that

[Cade]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

Isn't the eu our largest customer too? 

Nobody can be that stupid.

 

He's either trolling or a fully paid up member of the Brexit death cult, happy to see the UK ruined as long as it means we're not in the EU.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

There’s going to have to be an agreement on this because anyone who thinks the EU can take a no deal brexit is kidding themselves. There might be a united front from them at the moment but Tusk and others will get it in the neck from some in the EU when the reality of it starts to bite. The consequences would be big.

 

As for us, you’ve got two total arseholes in charge of both main parties. Both clueless and inept. I wish we could go for a second referendum but it’s clear that that ain’t happening.

[Cade]

The UK is a net importer from the EU

We have an overall trade deficit of -£67billion with the EU.

A surplus of +£28billion on services (mainly financial) is outweighed by a -£95billion deficit on goods.

40% of our exports to the EU were services.

 

Financial services relies on the EU passport, which may be lost.

Several UK based banks have already fecked off to Frankfurt or Dublin.

 

This means our trade deficit with the EU will only rise as our provision of services falls.

 

We will be paying steep tariffs on all of these imports.

Prices on just about everything are going to go up.

Businesses and consumers will be priced out of things.

Demand will fall.

Production will fall.

Jobs will be lost.

Companies will fail.

Very probably a recession.

 

But at least we'll have blue passports.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

4 minutes ago, Cade said:

The UK is a net importer from the EU

We have an overall trade deficit of -£67billion with the EU.

A surplus of +£28billion on services (mainly financial) is outweighed by a -£95billion deficit on goods.

40% of our exports to the EU were services.

 

Financial services relies on the EU passport, which may be lost.

Several UK based banks have already fecked off to Frankfurt or Dublin.

 

This means our trade deficit with the EU will only rise as our provision of services falls.

 

We will be paying steep tariffs on all of these imports.

Prices on just about everything are going to go up.

Businesses and consumers will be priced out of things.

Demand will fall.

Production will fall.

Jobs will be lost.

Companies will fail.

Very probably a recession.

 

But at least we'll have blue passports.

 

The only way of counter acting that is with trade deals elsewhere but there’s literally nowhere that offers so much of what we want/need as the EU. Even America will be a nightmare to deal with - look at the way trump bangs tariffs on everything 

[Seymour M Hersh]

I see Germany slipped into recession last quarter and now the EU has slashed their growth forecasts for the club. In addition Macron is getting bitch about Germany's unilateral gas pipeline with the Russians.

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, sairyinthat said:

 

Yeah funny isn't it?Well tried tactic used by mob handed groups liberty takers,and it wont work were getting oot the hard or soft way.Their choice.

 

I wasn't laughing at it, I was laughing at what you posted. 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, JAYEL said:

Well they better start playing ball or that is what they will get

 

Yeah.  Tell 'em to get it right up them. 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

....the two years is a EU rule not a UK one, it's the EU which set that time frame.

 

Don't be bending the facts to try to pin the rap on the EU for something caused by the ineptitude and poor leadership of the Conservative government in the UK.

 

The timeframe of two years from the invocation of Article 50 is set in the Treaty by the agreement of Member States.  The deadline of March 29th was set solely by the UK when it decided to invoke Article 50 when it did.  The EU had no control over the date.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

Don't be bending the facts to try to pin the rap on the EU for something caused by the ineptitude and poor leadership of the Conservative government in the UK.

 

The timeframe of two years from the invocation of Article 50 is set in the Treaty by the agreement of Member States.  The deadline of March 29th was set solely by the UK when it decided to invoke Article 50 when it did.  The EU had no control over the date.

 

Wasn't trying to bend any facts and I'm certainly not trying to defend the Tories, simply pointing out that the two year timeframe was set in the rules from whenever A50 was triggered.  The date in which the UK triggered A50 is irrelavent as there would still have been the two year timeframe from whatever date the UK triggered A50 from.  

 

That is what I was pointing out.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

Isn't the eu our largest customer too? 

 

The EU Single Market might be the largest destination for the UK's exports - to be honest I haven't checked.

 

What I have checked is that for each and every other country in the EU, their biggest export market is the EU Single Market. That market is worth nearly seven times as much trade as the UK market.

 

If the UK is asking the EU 27 to damage the integrity of the Single Market and the trade that goes with it just to shore up the much smaller UK market then the UK is asking something of the EU 27 that it can't give.  Theresa May knows that, even if some of her Tory "fog in channel" crew don't know it and no matter how many economic and political illiterates yell at her to tell the EU 27 to GTFO.

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

 The date in which the UK triggered A50 is irrelavent

 

No it isn't. The date is relevant because regardless of what stance the EU 27 took in the negotiations, the UK could never have gained a successful outcome without being thoroughly prepared for the negotiations. The UK was not anywhere nearly as prepared as they should have been.

 

I have previously described the approach of the British government as being reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, and I stand over that.  What they should have done was take the time to work out what they wanted and develop as many strategies and plans as possible to manage a bad deal or no deal - and then invoke Article 50 and start negotiating.  That way they would have gone in to negotiations with a clear view of what they wanted, a clear sense of where they could compromise and where they couldn't, a clear idea of bottom lines, a clear message to their opposite numbers in Europe that they knew what they wanted and what they were prepared to do if they couldn't get it, and a clear signal to the people of the UK that they were in charge of the agenda and on top of their game.

 

Did they do any of that?  Be honest, you don't believe for an instant that they did.  Instead they mooched around the place with no plan, no wishlist, no tactics, and no unity of purpose.  It got so bad that in the end they were only able to go along with a temporary arrangement that would last for less than two years - and that only if your political system could stop convulsing and actually live with it.

 

People want to blame the EU 27 for this situation, but the truth is that the British government has let the country down.

[The Mighty Thor]

I see on the beeb webshite the Maybot is still "going to deliver Brexit and deliver it on time"

She must be close to being sectioned by now? Surely to ****?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

22 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

No it isn't. The date is relevant because regardless of what stance the EU 27 took in the negotiations, the UK could never have gained a successful outcome without being thoroughly prepared for the negotiations. The UK was not anywhere nearly as prepared as they should have been.

 

I have previously described the approach of the British government as being reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, and I stand over that.  What they should have done was take the time to work out what they wanted and develop as many strategies and plans as possible to manage a bad deal or no deal - and then invoke Article 50 and start negotiating.  That way they would have gone in to negotiations with a clear view of what they wanted, a clear sense of where they could compromise and where they couldn't, a clear idea of bottom lines, a clear message to their opposite numbers in Europe that they knew what they wanted and what they were prepared to do if they couldn't get it, and a clear signal to the people of the UK that they were in charge of the agenda and on top of their game.

 

Did they do any of that?  Be honest, you don't believe for an instant that they did.  Instead they mooched around the place with no plan, no wishlist, no tactics, and no unity of purpose.  It got so bad that in the end they were only able to go along with a temporary arrangement that would last for less than two years - and that only if your political system could stop convulsing and actually live with it.

 

People want to blame the EU 27 for this situation, but the truth is that the British government has let the country down.

 

I think you have picked me up wrong, or perhaps I haven't made it clear enough.

 

The point I am making is that the precise date didn't matter when A50 was triggered as there was always going to be a two year timeframe, as per the rules, and that is the only point I was making.

 

What I fully accept and agree with you is that the tories didn't have a strategy, a plan, any plan, but I've never said they did nor even inferred such and that is where I think we have crossed wires.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Don't be bending the facts to try to pin the rap on the EU for something caused by the ineptitude and poor leadership of the Conservative government in the UK.

 

The timeframe of two years from the invocation of Article 50 is set in the Treaty by the agreement of Member States.  The deadline of March 29th was set solely by the UK when it decided to invoke Article 50 when it did.  The EU had no control over the date.

The EU did however refuse to begin discussions until Article 50 was invoked. And even then not until the UK accepted the EU' s precondition for starting discussions - acceptance of the divorce bill and the border backstop.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

While the UK deserves the ridicule it is getting, I think it worth sparing a thought for the Irish PM's toe curling presentation to juncker of a "Thanks from Ireland" card like something out of the Card Shop supposedly sent to the EU by a family in Dublin thanking the EU for making for the first time in history  Ireland more important than the UK.

Juncker to be fair looked a little embarrassed and ignored it.

[Cade]

UK should have held a cross-party national convention on Brexit before triggering Article 50.

Then we'd know what we were going to be asking for and Parliament as a whole would be behind the negotiations, having agreed what each party wanted during the convention.

Once Article 50 was triggered we'd then spend two years having grown-up negotiations with the EU, making minor adjustments in order to hold the decisions made in the convention.

Legislation could then be passed by Parliament  as talks progressed so that we'd be 100% ready when the leaving date was reached.

 

We've done the entire thing backwards and become an international laughing stock.

[sairyinthat]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

UK should have held a cross-party national convention on Brexit before triggering Article 50.

Then we'd know what we were going to be asking for and Parliament as a whole would be behind the negotiations, having agreed what each party wanted during the convention.

Once Article 50 was triggered we'd then spend two years having grown-up negotiations with the EU, making minor adjustments in order to hold the decisions made in the convention.

Legislation could then be passed by Parliament  as talks progressed so that we'd be 100% ready when the leaving date was reached.

 

We've done the entire thing backwards and become an international laughing stock.

Think so?National convention was quite clear at the elections Oot whether you like it or not and were going and any MP opposing it if they don't get deslected by their local party will be crying in their beer at the next election ,that goes for all parties.Tell me why do you want the electors vote disregarded?

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Cade said:

UK should have held a cross-party national convention on Brexit before triggering Article 50.

Then we'd know what we were going to be asking for and Parliament as a whole would be behind the negotiations, having agreed what each party wanted during the convention.

Once Article 50 was triggered we'd then spend two years having grown-up negotiations with the EU, making minor adjustments in order to hold the decisions made in the convention.

Legislation could then be passed by Parliament  as talks progressed so that we'd be 100% ready when the leaving date was reached.

 

We've done the entire thing backwards and become an international laughing stock.

Sheer fantasy. There was no and is no consensus on the form of brexit or even that Brexit should happen at all. Those who lost the vote immediately started to try to reverse it.

[luckydug]

3 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

Think so?National convention was quite clear at the elections Oot whether you like it or not and were going and any MP opposing it if they don't get deslected by their local party will be crying in their beer at the next election ,that goes for all parties.Tell me why do you want the electors vote disregarded?

Will you and all the other oot at any price Brexiteers be prepared to hold your hands up and admit you were wrong when it all goes tits up ?

I can't understand why some people are so dogmatic in their views about Brexit one way or the other.

The truth is nobody really knows what's going to happen and that is a large part of the problem .

The people of Sunderland voted by a large majority to leave  and now 6000 of them are facing the dole.

How many other towns are going to suffer the same fate ?