Wes Tender

What a load of cobblers. I really can't be arsed to respond to it all. You might have time to indulge yourself, but I haven't. I'm perfectly content with the consequences of leaving the EU and consider that being out of the EU will be worth it, but if you aren't then tough titties. Suck it up loser.

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/pulling-down-the-barriers-to-world-trade/ Feel free to tell me where you disagree with all of this, but take it up with them. For myself, I really don't give a fig what yours, Verbal's or Shurlock's predictions of what the consequences would be. I have made my position clear. A decent FTA deal like Canada+++ or WTO terms if one is not available. My vote for Brexit was largely based on sovereignty grounds, not economic. I appreciate that you Remoaners are blinkered towards the economy, but that is largely the reason why your lot lost the referendum vote.

I've read up on it since we voted to leave. I don't dispute that a good FTA would be better than WTO terms, but as I said, Chequers is not that deal. I presume that you have read up on the Chequers deal and realise how bad that is?

It would have to be really bad to be worse than Chequers. And like the Chequers deal, if it wasn't what we wanted and the EU weren't prepared to make it what we wanted, we should leave under WTO terms. I wouldn't be whining about that

So Canada+++ wasn't offered as an option. Quel surprise. Let's rig a poll by not including the option that most would vote for. What a load of thickos the electorate must be, not voting to remain in the "A" option, eh, Timmy?

How old are you, Timmy? You're giving clues about you mental age, but how about your physical age?

Been on the vino, Timmy?

It depends what the question was that was asked by pollers. Was Canada +++ an option? I suspect not, as probably that would have received the majority vote, so it probably wasn't even an option.

OK, so you prove conclusively that you are not a democrat. And then to add insult to injury, you propose that despite promises made by the Government that they would abide by the result of this recent referendum and the Commons voting by a large majority to trigger Article 50 so endorsing the decision, you still persist in the puerile argument that it was just advisory. This time you would make it binding, so that if your lot won, even by the slenderest margin, it would stick. What hypocrisy that would be, when after subsequent mass Leave vote marches calling for yet another "peoples vote", you wouldn't accept holding one because although opinion might have shifted the few percent to favour a leave vote once more, you will then claim that the democratic decision had already been made once the facts had become known. And where was this pandering to the electorate's change of mind when the entire basis of what they originally voted for in the first referendum, joining a "common market", then morphed into a federal project? Were you clamouring for a referendum after each treaty, Amsterdam, Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon? No, I very much doubt it. Probably you were entirely happy that circumstances could change all they liked provided that it brought us ever closer to a United States of Europe. We had to wait over forty years to finally get that second referendum and yet here you are proposing a third one barely more than a couple of years after a vote to leave, when we haven't even left yet, let alone sorted out any trade deal. Do you not realise how pathetic that makes you remoaner losers look? And talking about the Westminster bubble and self-interest, it is big business and the establishment who led project fear during and after the referendum. Are you really that naive as to believe that those vested interests will somehow disappear in a third referendum? What would stop the Tories self-destructing would be to ditch May, ditch Chequers and negotiate a proper Brexit that satisfies the majority of the electorate who voted to leave the EU. If they don't then a decade in the political wilderness awaits.

Where? Show us. An opinion that there could be civil unrest does not constitute a threat of violence by those expressing it, does it?

We have clarity? LOL We only found out three days ago what May and Oily Robbins' proposed deal was, which isn't actually what Leave means, even if you believe it to be, sonny. I need to remind you on Remoaner fantasy island, there is little support for Chequers, either inside the House or outside of it. And support for May and Chequers among Conservative Party members is hardly registering into double figures. If May doesn't follow through on Brexit and calls the whole thing off, then the Conservative Party is out of power for the next decade at least.

You clearly don't understand the implications of this "deal" if you think it is done and dusted. It will not be done and dusted until the Commons votes it through. And even then, this is just the Transitional period deal, not our trade deal with the EU, which hasn't even begun being discussed properly yet.

You have to laugh at hypocrites who say that referenda have no place in our democratic system and then when they lose one, they want to have another one. Exactly how many referenda do you think that we should have on this issue? If Remain won your laughingly named "peoples vote," 2 years or so would be fair game for the Leavers to call for another one, wouldn't it? We could also call that the "peoples vote" too and castigate the remoaners for being afraid of holding one in case they lost. Or maybe we could hold a referendum on whether there should be another referendum on the EU. The trouble is, this is likely to take us past the 29th March 2019, when we will have already left.

The main proposers for a second vote comes from those who lost the first one. I wonder why that is? You can't see why anybody would object to one on democratic grounds, yet you somehow fail to realise that ignoring the majority vote in a referendum is hugely undemocratic.

I'm afraid that your powers of reasoning are faulty if you draw either conclusion. What is indicative of Fox's position, along with Gove's and indeed Mordaunt's, is that five of the remaining pro-Brexit cabinet ministers are meeting to try and get May to change some of the Chequers deal. Personally I think that is a fool's errand, as May has a stubborn single-mindedness about her and she cannot admit that the deal that she has spent several months pursuing on behalf of Oily Robbins was never going to be popular with anybody. It might also be the case that those ministers know damned well that Chequers will be ditched by the Commons and that May will be forced to resign unless the agrees to go for an alternative like Canada +++, which she won't. And that is even if she lasts that long without a leadership challenge. Why do I want her to quit? Because she has been the weakest Conservative leader in my memory, being compared by some to the likes of Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain. She made all the right noises about Brexit when appointed, despite being a Remoaner, but it has become clear that she is still a Remoaner. She has surrounded herself with fellow remoaners, allowed a Civil Servant to lead her by the nose with this ridiculous Chequers plan, forced two Brexit Ministers appointed by her to resign because she undermined their authority, and was utterly incompetent in the way that she went about the negotiations. She has wasted two years and we have not even started negotiating the trade deal yet. Frankly she is an embarrassment.

There's no need to have a think. You're talking complete and utter b*llocks. As usual

Like Shurlock, your opening sentence is missing the vital adjective "bad". Like me, you're a businessman. Do you really mean to tell me that you would rather accept a deal that is bad for your business than to walk away from it? I've already stated that I would prefer a good free trade deal with the EU, but not one where all we achieve is vassal or colony status. I'm afraid that you have been subjected to too much establishment and big business propaganda, whereby every commentator opining on the consequences of us leaving the EU on WTO terms describes it as a cliff edge, crashing out, a disastrous act of self-harm, etc. This is very much the same sort of language used by the same people when we decided not to join the ERM and when Singapore decided to leave the Malaysian Federation in 1965. In the short term there will some disruption, but after that it would prove to be the best thing we have done.

Source? Whilst claiming disunity amongst the ERG over what type of Brexit deal to pursue, no doubt you will be happy to summarise the unified plan from HM official Opposition on the subject. What effect on the Country's economy would they have if in Government? And how many wealth creators would be running for the tax havens when Labour intends to tax them until the pips squeak?

No need to apologise, Badger. I didn't dispute that he had said that, did I? As I have explained to the hard of thinking Shurlock, the vast majority of Brexiteers accept that a good free trade deal with the EU is preferable to leaving with no deal. So it is hardly earth shattering news that Fox expressed this opinion. I share it. But having no deal is certainly better than Chequers and that is why it will be rejected by the Commons.

It's the Daily Mirror. Surely you didn't expect anything better from them?

Wriggle, wriggle wriggle. I'm afraid that you're still on the hook. I'm perfectly calm, even sanguine about it. Despite your best remoaner efforts to paint anybody who wants to leave the sclerotic EU as some sort of deranged, thick zealot, I agree with Fox. A deal is better than no deal. Fox didn't need to specify that he meant a good deal. It is only idiots who would think that meant that a bad deal was better than no deal. Did you think that he meant that a bad deal was better than no deal, Shurlock? But then it needs to be a good deal, obviously to get through the Commons. The Chequers fudge is about as far away from a good deal as May and her Rasputin, Oily Robbins, could manage, so its chances of getting through the House are extremely remote, even if May survives that long. Just so that you know, I would prefer a good deal to no deal too. Canada +++ will do just fine. If the EU feel that they can't accept our tech proposals to solve the Irish border, then I will have few qualms about going down the WTO trade route.

You read it twice and still didn't notice the one little word that was missing. The word is "bad". But the context is not that a bad deal is better than no deal, so stop creaming yourself, sonny. It is better to have bread than no bread. But it is better to have no bread rather than stale bread. Do you see the difference?

So you would find it easy to comprehend then?

Looks as if the 48 letters are probably in. Eagerly awaiting May's resignation speech at 5pm

https://twitter.com/Number10cat