Guided Missile

Mate, I didn't bother to read it. I asked my dog and he said I should consider referring it to the EJC, because he didn't have jurisdiction over what he thinks is primarily an international treaty and open to interpretation, that only they could rule on.

So, contrary to Herbert's arrogant contention that a no deal won't get through Parliament, the latest news here from the Grauniad...

Not quite as simple as your dog thinks, Herbert:

Back on ignore for you Herbert, but I'll leave you with this article from September, 2018: Woof, woof...

Keep squirming Herbert, AKA the gravel and cement king of Southampton....

Answer my original question and I might answer yours. Why do you and Herbert assert that Parliament can prevent the Government leaving the EU on a no deal basis?

These guys have:

You'd better ask Herbert about the future. He's the one making a fortune gambling on currencies. My point was that if the Government determine it is in the the national interest to leave the EU without a deal, Parliament can't stop them. I still can't work out why you think they can.

Keep digging, Herbert....you having a mare is hilarious. #Loadsamoney

Here's me quoting Dominic Raab and Andrea Leadsom from this article, published a week ago. Still, as I am humouring you, I'd be interested in you explaining, in your own words, how you think Parliament can prevent a "no deal" Brexit, because Herbert has already made a fool of himself trying...

Herbert Von W@nkstain - Champagne Socialist

Obviously the ECJ has ruled, very coincidentally and the day before the meaningful vote, that the UK can revoke Article 50, but not to extend the process. These postdated the article I quoted, but I'm not sure how this supports your argument as Dominic Grieve's amendment to the Withdrawal Act wasn't mentioned in the ECJ judgement.... Best get Herbert to draft a response for you, although he's probably tired from reading up about Parliamentary Democracy....

Herbert Von W@nkstain having a mare....

Oh, look, Herbert's got a hand puppet. That's the way to do it....

Exactly...

Sorry, mate, I don't know what you're talking about. The referendum was a vote, informing Parliament of the will of the people and is thus advisory, a "motion in neutral terms" is a motion voted on by Parliament and is advisory and an Act of Parliament, as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is the law, which the Government enforces. Any change to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 requires, not surprisingly, an Act of Parliament, after it has passed though both Houses and received Royal Assent. Personally, I think the Government, whether it is Labour or Conservative, would be more concerned with ignoring the advice of 17.4 million than Dominic f***ing Grieve....

Parliament get's a vote, but it's advisory. The Government can chose to ignore it. It's why it's called "a motion in neutral terms."

As someone quoted you Herbert, I read your arrogant post and thought I'd teach you a bit about the Withdrawal Act and Parliamentary Democracy, as it is apparent you are clueless. In leaving without a deal, the Government does not require Parliamentary Approval to enforce the Withdrawal Act as it is for the Government to enact the laws passed by Parliament, not seek Parliamentary approval for every act of Governance. Specifically, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 states: *The vote would be on "a motion in neutral terms", merely stating that the House has considered the statement. It does not require the government to seek the approval of Parliament for its course of action. In other words, traitor Dominic Grieve's amendment means f*** all, as does your post. HTH

#StockholmSyndrome

Picture of woman having a nervous breakdown...

There's a very simple way, to my mind, of accomplishing this, without "re-joining". We are part of the EEA and have never, as far as I know, invoked Article 127 to leave this organisation. So, we invoke the Article, giving the required 12 months notice and temporarily remain as members of the EEA, which guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for individuals and economic operators in the EEA. It provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital. I can live with that for 12 months, while we prepare for WTO rules and negotiate FTA's.

Letter to the Telegraph today... Thanks, Tim. Always nice to be proved right by an expert.

According to figures published by the UK Office of National Statistics in November – in the second calendar year following the EU referendum – exports to non-EU countries were £342 billion while exports to EU countries were £274 billion. In the same period, the growth in exports continued to outstrip the growth in imports, almost halving the UK’s trade deficit from £23.4 billion to £15.8 billion. Most exceptionally, since the referendum, exports have increased by £111 billion to £610 billion.

Should be required reading from today's Telegraph: Andrea Hossó is a member of Economists for Free Trade, a former trade negotiator and has worked in finance for more than 20 years

We are opposed...by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence...on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice...its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumour is printed, no secret is revealed...