Wes Tender

It seems that Bercow has ruled out a vote on the amendment to vote that there should be no further referendum on whether to leave the EU. There is considerable anger aimed towards this obnoxious little creep and his Remoaner bias. The whole political system is rotten from top to bottom and yes, if it means that as a result there is civil disobedience, then they have it all coming to them.

Long delay (if it happens without us leaving on WTO terms on 29th March) has some silver linings. Time to ditch the witch, appoint a pro-Brexit leader of the Party going for a Canada +++ deal with the EU. The new leader then sacking Hammond, Rudd, Gauke, Clark and other Remoaners in the Cabinet. Participation in the EU elections and the two main parties' vote being decimated by UKIP/Brexit Party, sending shock waves to them when they realise that they face a very serious threat in the next GE. Civil unrest in the Country, feeling angry and betrayed by the democratic process ignoring their instructions in the referendum. And then there is always the Schadenfreude of the loss of their jobs for the likes of Rudd, Soubry, Grieve, Wollaston, Allen, Sandbach etc. to look forward to in the next GE.

On today's order paper there is an amendment proposed to the motion that we extend Article 50 adding a fourth paragraph to say that “the result of the 2016 EU referendum should be respected and that a second EU referendum would be divisive and expensive, and therefore should not take place”. This is a cross party amendment and I can't see there being enough opposition to it for it not to go through. The prospect of another referendum is one suitable reason for the EU to grant a long extension to Article 50, which the devious cow May is threatening the House with. If there is no further referendum, then the only other reason an extension could be granted as far as I can see, is a General Election. May not having sacked the Ministers who abstained from voting with the Government under a three line whip, shows how weak she is and that she has totally lost control of the Party and should be told by the men in grey suits to resign forthwith. God forbid that the Conservatives would fight a GE with the most useless, incompetent and devious leader in our history in charge.

It appears that there is an old Parliamentary rule that prevents the same motion being put to the house multiple times. The Speaker could rule out May attempting to put her WA to the house for a third time. I hope that he does so, as the stupid, obstinate woman doesn't appear to realise that nobody likes her "deal" and that it was never ever going to get through the house from the minute it was conceived.

Except that the Prime Minister, Cameron, promised to accept the decision of the referendum and nobody from the other parties disagreed. But then again, they thought that Remain would win. But of course, had remain won, then that would be it, you wouldn't have been so hypocritical to have argued that it was only advisory then, would you?

They're the children of the Greenham Common Women protestors

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford Some interesting stuff about the events of today, Malthouse, etc

Mims Davies. She is generally pro-Brexit, but hampered by being a junior minister, so on the Government's payroll. Not that that has hampered the likes of Rudd, Gauke and Clark from breaking with Cabinet unity. The Eastleigh Conservative Association has its AGM on 28th March, the day before freedom day. Methinks I'll go along

I have a far more blatant example of treasonous behaviour. One of our former Prime Ministers plotting with the French, advising them as a consultant on how to overthrow the democratic wishes of the electorate expressed in a referendum. I'm speaking of Tony Blair, of course. The man's a complete Quisling.

Regardless of your personal opinion of him, nothing could be more nailed on than him being re-elected, together with a huge majority of fellow Eurosceptic MEPS if we had to vote in the European Elections

Afternoon "little fella" Shurlock. Yes, very much looking forward to it. These are quite the most interesting and stimulating political times that I can remember in my adult lifetime. Never before has their been such a major disconnect between the electorate and their elected representatives on such a major issue. The electorate are heartily fed up with the whole thing and are going to be very angry if Brexit is seriously delayed, watered down or scuppered. After tonight's and tomorrow's votes, if no deal is taken off the table and Brexit is delayed, then it will become crystal clear which MPs voted for those things. They are the ones who need to think about their future careers when they are thrown out at the next election. Unless the Conservatives under May or her successor can deliver an acceptable Brexit, their future as a party of government is over for the forseeable future. The same for Labour. We are already seeing the shifting tectonic plates in our political system with the newly formed Independent Group and the Brexit Party. It wouldn't surprise me to see further developments involving the two major parties splitting or forming inter party alliances. But I am of the belief that Brexit will still happen via us leaving on WTO terms, either on 29th March, or a few months later before we are obliged to put up candidates for the European Elections.

He can't technically, so Jeff's assertion is idiotic. However, Farage was on his feet in the EU Parliament in Strasbourg this morning baiting them that unless they wanted to have him and many more Eurosceptic MEPs doing their best to disrupt proceedings in the EU, then they would do themselves and us a favour by not allowing us any extension to Article 50 which would take us past the date when we would have to hold elections to the European Parliament.

It isn't a new trend. These are the very same three who have already voted against the Labour Party line on more than one occasion. They are the Labour equivalent of Soubry, Grieve, Wollaston, etc, except that as pro-brexiteers they won't be joining the so-called Independent Group. It is a real pity that there are MPs of principle like these, who accept their obligation to honour the result of the referendum and the wishes of their local constituents, whereas the majority of their fellow MPs in their party couldn't care a toss for what their constituents want on this issue. CB Fry is extremely naive if he thinks that if many in the ERG got behind May's deal, then many Labour MPs would follow. The ERG isn't going to fold on May's deal whilst the backstop protocol doesn't contain a legally binding get-out clause.

So you're sucking up to him in order to ingratiate yourself to him?

You're Shurlock's poodle, aren't you? Either that or his ventriloquism dummy.

My poison as I've already made clear, is to leave on WTO terms. It is by no means definitely the case that amendments passed in Parliament to take no deal off the table or to extend Article 50 have force in law against the Article 50 Bill which states that we leave the EU on 29th March, deal or no deal. Read this article again, particularly the political repercussions for the two main parties of reneging on their manifesto promises that they would honour the referendum decision. https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-heres-brexit-cannot-stopped/ If we don't leave on 29th March, I am quite ambivalent about an extension, as it is not clear that one will be granted, but if it is, it is likely to be a long one, meaning that the Tories and Labour will be decimated in the local elections and the European Elections, as well as having to face growing anger and civil unrest in the Country. I believe that the grey suits of the Party will demand that May falls on her sword and that she is then replaced by somebody who actually is a Leaver, not a Remoaner like her.

Yes, since the "can you imagine" was surely your agreement to "little fella" Shurlock's ****fest at the possibility that Davis might vote for May's awful WA

A case of premature ejaculation from Jeff and "little fella" Shurlock. Had they read the coverage correctly, then they would have noticed the caveat that Davis placed on his potential acceptance of the Withdrawal Agreement. That is that Attorney General Geoffrey Cox had to OK it as being a legally binding way out of the so-called backstop arrangements. I suspect that it goes further than that too, that it would also have to pass muster by the nine Conservative legal eagles who have formed their own committee to appraise any deal. But just as you anti-democratic Remoaners on here are prematurely crowing about Davis potentially accepting the legal additions to the WA, Cox's predecessor the oleaginous rat anti-Brexit campaigner and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has already appeared on the radio this morning to announce that in his view the changes announced last night would not allow the UK “to terminate the backstop at a time of its own choosing” and that the new documents do not make “any significant difference” to the Withdrawal Agreement.

If we leave on WTO terms then certainly I'll be cracking open a bottle or two of English sparkling wine to celebrate. Apart from being out of the EU technically, there is little to celebrate leaving on May's so-called "deal", which is BRINO. But then there is always the hope that the party subsequently gets shot of the useless, spineless, devious cow soon after, and appoints somebody more capable of negotiating something better further down the line.

It's not going to be voted through tomorrow. Sorry to disappoint you.

I see that you are your usually charming, polite and affable self. Find a dark corner, sit there quietly until you can calm yourself down a bit.

Both trade and defence/security are matters of mutual benefit. In trade of goods, we have a large deficit compared to the EU. In defence and security, we have by far the greater capabilities. It is in the interests of both parties to cooperate together on both matters. It should not be impossible to agree on arrangements that suit both of us.

Read the article again (even if it is on a pro-Brexit site and you might feel stupidly unclean) and see what they have to say about their proposals for our national security and defence policies post Brexit here:- https://briefingsforbrexit.com/treaty-between-the-uk-and-northern-ireland-and-the-european-union-for-defence/ Also, what they said in the article linked above:- In the same way that if we leave the EU on WTO terms we will then arrange a mutually beneficial FTA with the EU, so we will post Brexit make mutually beneficial cooperative arrangments on security and military matters. In both cases, these arrangements will be on terms that suit us.

It was an observation, made calmly. If the cap fits, then wear it. You stating that no Brexit supporters can be trusted to tell the truth wasn't insulting? You like to dish it out, but can't take it back? Diddums.

Remoaners = all trustworthy and honest as the day is long. Leavers = all liars, totally untrustworthy. Are you really that simple?