Wes Tender

Another idiot

Idiot

We don't pay for our Conservative membership in dollars. HTH

Sorry to correct you, I didn't say that I hated Arabs. You really do need to take everything that Verbal says with a giant pinch of salt.

Calm down dear. I can almost see the blood vessels popping out on your temple and the reddening rage in your face. You do enjoy your little fantasies with you churlish name-calling and your bizarre labeling of people who disagree with you as jihadists for some reason. Sorry to disappoint you, but immigration wasn't the top reason why I voted to leave the EU, but just carry on with your pigeon-holing fantasies if it gives you a hard-on barking up the wrong tree as usual. I'm quite relaxed about the Windrush generation and see no reason why they should be repatriated so long after they came here. They have generally integrated well into our society. I'm also quite relaxed about controlled immigration, assessed on the basis of qualifications and need rather than just citizenship of the EU. I know that this doesn't suit your agenda, so I'm sorry if you are disappointed. As for the rest, it isn't worth wasting my time on. Again, sorry to disappoint you. As I say, sit down, take a deep breath and calm yourself.

You obviously missed the statements by then Prime Minister Cameron and other major politicians saying that whatever the electorate vote for will be implemented by them and that a simple majority would be sufficient. There ensued the GE manifestos in 2017 stating the same and the substantial majority in Parliament to trigger Article 50. There was the opportunity immediately after the vote for the Government to have said, "right we hear what you want, but we're not going to implement it, because it was only advisory and we think that we're better off inside the EU". But then they would have risked the repercussion of civil unrest unprecedented in our modern history, so they thought better of it. It is a bit feeble two and a half years after the referendum vote suggesting that it was purely advisory. Who would dare take that line now in Parliament?

You weren't listening, or just don't understand party politics to the degree that you do economics. If 48% of Conservative MPs voted against May, she would be toast. Hammond is being his usual tw*tish self. Voting against Remoaner May doesn't make an Conservative MP an extremist pushing for no deal. Most Brexiteer MPs want a FTA with the EU, but failing that they would happily go for a WTO deal. One doesn't need a vote for May to identify the remoaner MPs in the Conservative Party. You only need to listen to their language. They are the ones who either would even now ignore the wishes of their own electorates, prefer our existing arrangement with the EU to any FTA deal and speak of leaving the EU on WTO terms as "crashing out", going over a "cliff edge" and other shrill language. With luck, May will be replaced by a pro-Brexit leader, who will consider it a pleasure to get rid of spreadsheet Phil, who never passes up the opportunity to talk down our country and our economy in order to weaken our negotiating position with the EU. Amber Rudd will be no loss either.

Backbenchers would be foolish to believe anything she promises. She is completely untrustworthy and duplicitous. She is also too weak to make promises and then to keep them, as she is too easily persuaded to alter course towards her fundamental beliefs, rather than sticking to what she was instructed to do by those who put here in office.

Read carefully. I added the caveat that her position would be untenable if there was a substantial vote against her. In those circumstances her authority as PM would be badly undermined. If the party grandees then advised her that the honourable thing to do would be to resign, then it would be difficult for her not to do so. Either that, or have a large portion of the executive and membership of the Party ranged against her.

You don't read May very well, do you? She would cling on to her position as PM with her fingertips if necessary. She has a bone-headed stubborness which doesn't allow her to think straight about the massive dissent towards her in her own Party. Recent polls of members had their approval rating of her at historically rock bottom levels for a Party leader. She has surrounded herself with lackeys, so doesn't listen to the clamour in the Party to have her removed from office. Just as an example of how out of touch she is with the membership, she annoyed them last week by getting Central Office to post missives to all Party members crowing about what a great deal hers was and that they should help sell it to the electorate. Apart from the membership being furious that membership fees were being used to fund this propaganda for a deal that the vast majority do not support, they didn't appreciate her going over the heads of MPs to their constituents. Most local associations refused to distribute them so most ended up in the recycling bins. Yes, if she wins the vote she could technically be here for a year, provided that she isn't forced out by other circumstances. However, as I say, if the vote against her is substantial, it doesn't need to be a majority for the Party bigwigs to advise her to resign.

LOL. I'm really quite sanguine about the current position. Delude yourself that I'm in a fury if that's what rocks you boat. I'm enjoying the mental picture of your discomfort. I have considered your piece of political guesswork and have already passed comment on it. As I said, you really don't get this democracy lark, do you, believing that there should be a second referendum before the result of the last one has not even been enacted. Yes, if there isn't a majority tonight in the vote of no confidence against May, the rules mean that a further vote of no confidence cannot be held for a year. Technically she could win by one vote and remain as PM. But of course, in the real world, if the vote of no confidence in her was substantial, she would be badly damaged politically and if she didn't offer to resign, would be advised to by the Party hierarchy. See, as a Party member of decades standing I am indeed capable of responding to that as a political outcome.

Leave voters would never feel it was a "reasonable resting place" on the way to a full departure. After all, they voted for a full departure, not some half in, half out measures. You seem to believe that remaining part of a customs union, paying into the EU slush fund and accepting continued freedom of movement would all be acceptable. In any event, the leave voters also realise that the Norway option is the weasel route to us never being able to leave completely, because the time would never be right for the establishment and they would just be biding their time until they tried to take us back into the EU.

Whereas a remain victory in a second referendum (which you laughingly describe as a people's vote, as if people didn't vote in the last one) held before the decision of the last one was even enacted would restore peace and calm to the political landscape. What could possibly go wrong there, apart from the political and economic uncertainty being prolonged by the leave voters feeling cheated and demanding yet another referendum? You really don't get this democracy lark, do you?

So all those who have studied economics all agree with each other do they? Even the most illustrious economists in history have differing opinions on what economic policy should be applied to different financial situations. It isn't an exact science, is it?

Of course I get that. And pretty flat its been since the early nineties. As you are no doubt aware, our trade as a percentage is declining with the EU, and increasing with the rest of the world. And that is despite all the more recent additions there have been to the EU membership since then.

As the economies of most areas in the World are developing at a far faster rate than the EU's it follows that we would have been better off trading with them instead of being tied to trade deals with the EU. That trend line in the graph looks pretty flat to me since the early nineties. Thanks for illustrating it.

Having witnessed first hand how being in the Common Market/EEC/EU has held us back in our prosperity as a nation during most of my adult life, I made the rational decision from experience, that my family would be better off if we traded more with the larger outside World that is increasing its prosperity faster than the more stagnant EU. If I understand it correctly, you actually worked for the EU, so naturally you would therefore be loathe to accept that the better option for our medium to long term prosperity lies outside of the EU, but you are just a little European.

As you are well aware (if you are a realist and honest with yourself) there are as many idiots on the remain side who post inane claptrap threatening all sorts of physical harm too. Also there are those like you who let puerile and infantile name-calling suffice as their particular bile of choice.

I never said that or anything like it. You will no doubt be happy to show the alleged post , or apologise.

Shurlock, I'm still waiting for your opinion on the moral obligations of our elected representatives towards the manifesto promises that they were elected on, and the decision in the referendum to leave the EU Most were elected on manifesto promises that we would not be part of a customs union or the single market, and a promise to respect the referendum decision. Most represent constituencies that voted to leave the EU. As there is, as you say, a significant majority of remain MPs, is it a la la land fantasy to expect them to actually carry out the wishes of the voters who employ them to represent their wishes?

I have children and grandchildren. I realise that you might have an "I'm alright Jack, blow you" attitude, but I don't.

I think that you are getting confused between the EU telling us that we can unilaterally revoke article 50 (as far as they are concerned) and what our Parliament is able to do to revoke it (as far as we are concerned)

Or the £39 billion would pay for a lot of things too.

What does our unwritten or uncodified constitution say about Parliament's obligations regarding referenda and manifesto policies?

Well, you're a remoaner, probably like most of them who have no idea at all; you know, the metropolitan establishment elite, those within the M25 bubble whose main concern with Brexit is that they might be deprived of their eastern European barrista or nanny. I'm sure that you won't be bothered and are bored, but you make a grave error of judgement if you believe that the majority of leave voters would just shrug their shoulders at a government betrayal of Brexit.