Brexit discussion thread III

J Mysterio · 19-03-2018 07:32PM

The UK cabinet have essentially accepted that NI will remain in customs union I think, they just are keeping schtum about it as the DUP will have a fit. They seem to be a bit slow to realise what just happened and dont seem to be able to articulate a poisition on it.

If it comes to it, May will call their bluff about bringing down the government as Parliament will be so weary of the process they will pass the eventual deal. If the DUP were to bring the Tories down *following* their signing of the deal, it could actually work in the Tories favour as they have 'sacrificed their government to get Brexit for Britain'

Sand · 19-03-2018 07:49PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sand states that Blair was hoping to bin the Tories by letting in so many EU migrants. If there's any more info on this, I would be very interested. Perhaps Blair had plans to streamline citizenship applications and was confident of winning the next election so that the requisite 5 years could pass for these EU nationals to be eligible to vote. Only Ireland, Sweden and the UK declined to put restrictions on Eastern EU migration in place following their accession to the EU.

The claim is by Andrew Neather, a former advisor to several figures inside the Labour party, including Blair himself. Neather made the claim in 2009, in a Telegraph article. The exact phrasing is "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." The assumption being these new arrivals would be Labour voters, not Tory.

Neather claims that Labour leaders may have privately supported this, but they were not going to argue for migration on the benefits of multiculturalism, let alone party political advantage. So the instead the dubious economic benefits were the argument made.

You can believe or disbelieve Neather - none of the Labour figures are going to confirm his claim. But its certainly clear that something dramatic happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s to long term migration into the UK. Firstly, in the ten years to 1998, migration into the UK averaged 304 thousand people annually. For the 10 years after 1998 to 2008 this leaped to 535 thousand people annually. This is just an average, many years were much higher again.

For another perspective, 1998 was the first year in the records when net migration into the UK breached 100,000. It jumped from just 48,000 net migrants in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and has climbed and climbed since to 333 thousand in 2015: this net figure is still higher than annual immigrant only figures in any year preceding 1998.

The UK experience of migration over the past 20 years is abnormal. The UK had seen nothing like it previously. Brexit is part of the collateral damage. The problem is none of the parties, Tory, Labour, LibDem or UKIP for that matter want to represent the voters behind Brexit. The parties want more Global Britain. So we're going to see more turmoil, like Brexit, between the voters and their supposed representatives while this works itself out.

Professor Moriarty · 19-03-2018 07:52PM

Sand wrote: »

The claim is by Andrew Neather, a former advisor to several figures inside the Labour party, including Blair himself. Neather made the claim in 2009, in a Telegraph article. The exact phrasing is "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." The assumption being these new arrivals would be Labour voters, not Tory.

Neather claims that Labour leaders may have privately supported this, but they were not going to argue for migration on the benefits of multiculturalism, let alone party political advantage. So the instead the dubious economic benefits were the argument made.

You can believe or disbelieve Neather - none of the Labour figures are going to confirm his claim. But its certainly clear that something dramatic happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s to long term migration into the UK. Firstly, in the ten years to 1998, migration into the UK averaged 304 thousand people annually. For the 10 years after 1998 to 2008 this leaped to 535 thousand people annually. This is just an average, many years were much higher again.

For another perspective, 1998 was the first year in the records when net migration into the UK breached 100,000. It jumped from just 48,000 net migrants in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and has climbed and climbed since to 333 thousand in 2015: this net figure is still higher than annual immigrant only figures in any year preceding 1998.

The UK experience of migration over the past 20 years is abnormal. The UK had seen nothing like it previously. Brexit is part of the collateral damage. The problem is none of the parties, Tory, Labour, LibDem or UKIP for that matter want to represent the voters behind Brexit. The parties want more Global Britain. So we're going to see more turmoil, like Brexit, between the voters and their supposed representatives while this works itself out.

How can any party represent Leave voters? Nobody, including themselves, knows what they voted for.

Leroy42 · 19-03-2018 07:58PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How can any party represent Leave voters? Nobody, including themselves, knows what they voted for.

UKIP did and they only got 4m votes and no seats.

UKIP ran almost entirely on an anti-immigration platform, with EU the target.

But why would any mainstream party run on a platform of making the country worse off?

Labour gets ridiculed in the media for being anti-business, when Brexit could be the biggest anti-business thing that has ever been done.

Sure you can argue that globalisation is wrong etc, but that is to ignore that other countries don't agree and as such no single country is going to turn to clock back (even the US will struggle and they are by far the biggest).

Professor Moriarty · 19-03-2018 08:07PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

UKIP did and they only got 4m votes and no seats.

UKIP ran almost entirely on an anti-immigration platform, with EU the target.

But why would any mainstream party run on a platform of making the country worse off?

Labour gets ridiculed in the media for being anti-business, when Brexit could be the biggest anti-business thing that has ever been done.

Sure you can argue that globalisation is wrong etc, but that is to ignore that other countries don't agree and as such no single country is going to turn to clock back (even the US will struggle and they are by far the biggest).

UKIP promised a variety of things and they're not in power to deliver them. Not that they were deliverable anyway. It would be fine if people had been voting for UKIP based on their Brexit manifesto. But this was a referendum so there was no definitive definition of what Brexit meant. Did Joe Bloggs vote for Boris's Brexit? Farage's? A Brexit that only Joe Bloggs can imagine?

Labour is a disaster. If they were halfway decent, the Tories would be in opposition instead of leading Labour by 3 points in the latest poll.

Angry bird · 19-03-2018 08:11PM

Must admit that it's come as a surprise, nonetheless a welcome one. The hard Brexiteers have a choice, reject and fresh election or continue the pretence. The reaction will be interesting and I do think that at some point an election is required, when is hard to say.

For us, while risks remain, the border issue is moving in the right direction. I expect some more DUP toys being thrown out of the pram but I'd say the recent release of monies to NI was the bribe accepted.

Water John · 19-03-2018 08:16PM

Some here seem to be looking for a, grand capitulation, on the UK side. That is not desirable. This gradual erosion of their position is far more in our interests.
It helps mainstream public and politicians in the UK to accept and adapt to it.
The EU side is winning so lets keep pushing in the one direction, gradually.

Sand · 19-03-2018 08:54PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How can any party represent Leave voters? Nobody, including themselves, knows what they voted for.

I think its difficult because Brexit voters had many different motivations, but its not impossible. It is what representative politics is about afterall. Simon Wren-Lewis took an overview of a dozen polls taken of Leave voters. His conclusion was Brexit was a vote against globalisation and social liberalism, the two issues being connected by immigration. Its certainly open to more study, but I think Ganesh's view that the 'permanently aggrieved' can and should be ignored is both outrageously arrogant and as seen in Brexit, mistaken. These people and their concerns need to be represented. The UK is desperately in need of PR voting.

What we can be very, very clear on is that the driving force behind Brexit was not desperately seeking a more global Britain, with free trade deals around the world. Unfortunately, this is what the Tory's want, so it is the Brexit that is being delivered.

Either British political classes reconnect with the interests of their voters, or we'll continue to see political turmoil in the UK. Because the 52% are not going to be satisfied with a Singapore-on-Thames Brexit.

Professor Moriarty · 19-03-2018 09:08PM

Sand wrote: »

I think its difficult because Brexit voters had many different motivations, but its not impossible. It is what representative politics is about afterall. Simon Wren-Lewis took an overview of a dozen polls taken of Leave voters. His conclusion was Brexit was a vote against globalisation and social liberalism, the two issues being connected by immigration. Its certainly open to more study, but I think Ganesh's view that the 'permanently aggrieved' can and should be ignored is both outrageously arrogant and as seen in Brexit, mistaken. These people and their concerns need to be represented. The UK is desperately in need of PR voting.

What we can be very, very clear on is that the driving force behind Brexit was not desperately seeking a more global Britain, with free trade deals around the world. Unfortunately, this is what the Tory's want, so it is the Brexit that is being delivered.

Either British political classes reconnect with the interests of their voters, or we'll continue to see political turmoil in the UK. Because the 52% are not going to be satisfied with a Singapore-on-Thames Brexit.

One can be specific in hindsight. But the fact remains, all that is certain is that Leave voters voted for 'a Brexit'. That's all. Many voted for Brexit in a fit of incoherent rage such is the Tweedledum Tweedledee nature of British politics. Their needs won't be met by Brexit either.

Regarding who voted for Leave, this report's research suggests that there were three distinct categories only one of which could be seen as 'The Left Behind'. So not alone were there diverse reasons for voting Leave, there were diverse cohorts of people who would have very little in common other than they wanted 'a Brexit'. Satisfying diverse cohorts of people, the 52%, with widely differing and conflicting expectations won't happen under whatever Brexit emerges.

Leroy42 · 19-03-2018 09:10PM

But how else to achieve Brexit?

If they move away from the EU then they have little choice but to open to other countries, either than or see a massive fall in GDP and living standards. And I really doubt anybody voted to be out of a job or pay significantly higher taxes.

SO I don't agree that the tories version of Brexit is not what people wanted. Whether they really understood it is a different matter.

But, IMO, they wanted to see GB move away from the EU. From the regulations, the payments, the bureaucracy, the fishing quotas. They never wanted the Euro for example.

But clearly to achieve all of that they would need to step outside the EU (unless the EU caved which would then spell the end of the EU anyway) and how did people think they were going to make up the difference.

Sand · 19-03-2018 09:10PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

UKIP did and they only got 4m votes and no seats.

UKIP ran almost entirely on an anti-immigration platform, with EU the target.

I don't think UKIP is representing anti-globalisation, or anti-immigration views. UKIP is very much a single issue party: exit the EU. The revolution ends there, and so has the party. If there was more to it, if it had a bigger cause then it would still be relevant.

Farage is the son of a stockbroker. Farage himself is an ex-City of London banker/trader. He's married an Irishwoman and a German. He is very much plugged into the globalist/metropolitan elite. He's called for the UK to accept more Syrian refugees, rejected talks of caps on immigration and the UKIP immigration policy in 2015 is not exactly radically different to anything the Tories would produce. I think Farage is actually quite liberal on immigration: it is the UKIP base which was pushing hard for more restrictions.

Farage is going to be quite happy with the Tory style Brexit. He might criticise the outcome as not being good enough, but Singapore-on-Thames is just fine for him and his class.

ancapailldorcha · 19-03-2018 09:17PM

Sand wrote: »

The claim is by Andrew Neather, a former advisor to several figures inside the Labour party, including Blair himself. Neather made the claim in 2009, in a Telegraph article. The exact phrasing is "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." The assumption being these new arrivals would be Labour voters, not Tory.

Neather claims that Labour leaders may have privately supported this, but they were not going to argue for migration on the benefits of multiculturalism, let alone party political advantage. So the instead the dubious economic benefits were the argument made.

You can believe or disbelieve Neather - none of the Labour figures are going to confirm his claim. But its certainly clear that something dramatic happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s to long term migration into the UK. Firstly, in the ten years to 1998, migration into the UK averaged 304 thousand people annually. For the 10 years after 1998 to 2008 this leaped to 535 thousand people annually. This is just an average, many years were much higher again.

I don't know what to make of this to be honest. I'm wondering if Neather has some sort of agenda that I'm unaware of. I'm not dismissing this, I'm just skeptical. Why would Labour abandon a base of reliable, working class voters in favor of legions of foreigners who would take years to qualify for citizenship and that's if they can be bothered to stump up the £1,236 and then vote reliably. And that's before I get into things like the surprising number who are
more than happy to see the drawbridge raised. I don't think this is the whole story. I'm surprised Nigel Farage didn't make hay with this. That Telegraph link is dated October 2009.

Sand wrote: »

For another perspective, 1998 was the first year in the records when net migration into the UK breached 100,000. It jumped from just 48,000 net migrants in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and has climbed and climbed since to 333 thousand in 2015: this net figure is still higher than annual immigrant only figures in any year preceding 1998.

I don't think anyone on any side of the debate can deny the surge in migrants to the UK.

Sand wrote: »

The UK experience of migration over the past 20 years is abnormal. The UK had seen nothing like it previously. Brexit is part of the collateral damage. The problem is none of the parties, Tory, Labour, LibDem or UKIP for that matter want to represent the voters behind Brexit. The parties want more Global Britain. So we're going to see more turmoil, like Brexit, between the voters and their supposed representatives while this works itself out.

Whatever about the big three, the impression I got of the "global Britain" narrative espoused by the likes of Farage and his colleagues at UKIP was that they needed a counterargument to the economic argument used (perhaps overused) by the remain side so the idea that the commonwealth (which is 55% of the GDP of the EU once the UK is removed) would sign wonderful trade deals with the UK and strengthen historical ties was born. It's nonsense but then it's only purpose was to get Leave over the 50% threshold. I don't otherwise see any push for global Britain among UKIP politicans, members or supporters. I think they just wanted to regain power from the EU and limit the number of migrants entering the UK.

Sand wrote: »

Farage is the son of a stockbroker. Farage himself is an ex-City of London banker/trader. He's married an Irishwoman and a German. He is very much plugged into the globalist/metropolitan elite. He's called for the UK to accept more Syrian refugees, rejected talks of caps on immigration and the UKIP immigration policy in 2015 is not exactly radically different to anything the Tories would produce. I think Farage is actually quite liberal on immigration: it is the UKIP base which was pushing hard for more restrictions.

Farage is going to be quite happy with the Tory style Brexit. He might criticise the outcome as not being good enough, but Singapore-on-Thames is just fine for him and his class.

Wait, Farage called for more refugees to be taken in and is liberal on immigration? I've watched more of him on Youtube and TV than any other politician and don't recall anything like this.

Sand · 19-03-2018 09:18PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

One can be specific in hindsight. But the fact remains, all that is certain is that Leave voters voted for 'a Brexit'. That's all.

Regarding who voted for Leave, this report's research suggests that there were three distinct categories only one of which could be seen as 'The Left Behind'. So not alone were there diverse reasons for voting Leave, there were diverse cohorts of people who would have very little in common other than they wanted 'a Brexit'. Satisfying diverse cohorts of people, the 52%, with widely differing, and conflicting expectations won't happen under whatever Brexit emerges.

Again, this is what representative politics is about: representing the voters concerns. I wholly agree there were different motivations on the Leave side. Why is it impossible to represent them, whilst it is not remarkably difficult to represent the Remain side? Lets not pretend the Remain vote was much more unified, or even better informed than the Leave voters. Plenty of Remain votes were based on fear rather than any deep understanding of the issues and the trade-offs.

Professor Moriarty · 19-03-2018 09:23PM

Sand wrote: »

I don't think UKIP is representing anti-globalisation, or anti-immigration views. UKIP is very much a single issue party: exit the EU. The revolution ends there, and so has the party. If there was more to it, if it had a bigger cause then it would still be relevant.

Farage is the son of a stockbroker. Farage himself is an ex-City of London banker/trader. He's married an Irishwoman and a German. He is very much plugged into the globalist/metropolitan elite. He's called for the UK to accept more Syrian refugees, rejected talks of caps on immigration and the UKIP immigration policy in 2015 is not exactly radically different to anything the Tories would produce. I think Farage is actually quite liberal on immigration: it is the UKIP base which was pushing hard for more restrictions.

Farage is going to be quite happy with the Tory style Brexit. He might criticise the outcome as not being good enough, but Singapore-on-Thames is just fine for him and his class.

That was quite rightly called tokenism on the part of Farage. It would have been a couple of hundred genuine refugees at most. Something that was going to happen anyway. Farage isn't liberal on immigration. Never has been. In his latest wheeze, Farage wanted Britain to adopt Trump's extreme vetting policies.

Professor Moriarty · 19-03-2018 09:27PM

Sand wrote: »

Again, this is what representative politics is about: representing the voters concerns. I wholly agree there were different motivations on the Leave side. Why is it impossible to represent them, whilst it is not remarkably difficult to represent the Remain side? Lets not pretend the Remain vote was much more unified, or even better informed than the Leave voters. Plenty of Remain votes were based on fear rather than any deep understanding of the issues and the trade-offs.

It's impossible to represent them because you don't know what 'they' want. Nobody does because there is no 'they'.

I disagree completely regarding Remain. They knew exactly what they were voting for. More of what existed. They lived Remain for decades. They knew exactly what would happen if they won.

Sand · 19-03-2018 09:43PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's impossible to represent them because you don't know what 'they' want. Nobody does because there is no 'they'.

So you agree with Ganesh? The UK political class can expect there to be a 'permanently aggrieved' minority, and can/should ignore that minority? The UK ought to get used to continued political instability then.

I disagree completely regarding Remain. They knew exactly what they were voting for. More of what existed. They lived Remain for decades. They knew exactly what would happen if they won.

I don't agree. Firstly, the Remain vote included reluctant Euroskeptics who voted on the basis of party loyalty or fear of economic disturbance. This was the single biggest reason for voting Remain. Love of Europe, or fear of the UK becoming isolated was a minority issue. Measured by how long ago they had determined their vote, they were as convinced or conflicted as Leave voters. Less than a third believed the UK had the best of both worlds. And Cameron was not offering the EU, business as usual. His campaign for Remain was on the basis of the EU being reformed. There was always going to be changes, but what those changes were and how realistic they were was likely debatable.

So its not remarkable that a vote can have many different motivations and causes behind it.

ancapailldorcha · 19-03-2018 09:48PM

Sand wrote: »

So its not remarkable that a vote can have many different motivations and causes behind it.

Remarkable in the sense that it highlights the absurdity of using an atrociously timed, binary referendum to attempt to settle such a complex issue. How do you square your immigration-loving University student with reluctant remain voting Conservative centrists? Or libertarian globalists with working class left wingers?

Professor Moriarty · 19-03-2018 09:57PM

Sand wrote: »

So you agree with Ganesh? The UK political class can expect there to be a 'permanently aggrieved' minority, and can/should ignore that minority? The UK ought to get used to continued political instability then.

No, I agree with myself. There will always be permanently aggrieved minorities. Just because a few Little Englanders latched onto their wildy diverse grievances and misled them doesn't mean their needs are being met. Quite the opposite. Brexit was never the means by which they would be satisfied. Not least because nobody actually knows what 'they' wanted.

I don't agree. Firstly, the Remain vote included reluctant Euroskeptics who voted on the basis of party loyalty or fear of economic disturbance. This was the single biggest reason for voting Remain. Love of Europe, or fear of the UK becoming isolated was a minority issue. Measured by how long ago they had determined their vote, they were as convinced or conflicted as Leave voters. Less than a third believed the UK had the best of both worlds. And Cameron was not offering the EU, business as usual. His campaign for Remain was on the basis of the EU being reformed. There was always going to be changes, but what those changes were and how realistic they were was likely debatable.

So its not remarkable that a vote can have many different motivations and causes behind it.

Of course Remain voters were diverse and would have differing reasons for voting Remain. But that's not my point. My point is that Remain voters, regardless of their reasons for voting, knew what it was like to be part of the EU for decades. Sure, Cameron offered to work towards reforming the EU but voters knew what it was like to live as part of the EU and what it would very probably be like in the future. Leave voters hadn't a clue what they were voting for. And they still don't. Every red line that the Leave campaigners had promised to maintain has been erased by the EU.

Sand · 19-03-2018 10:02PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Leave voters hadn't a clue what they were voting for. And they still don't. Every red line that the Leave campaigners had promised to maintain has been erased by the EU.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

Professor Moriarty · 19-03-2018 10:12PM

Sand wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Nothing to do with the various lies they were told? I do wish someone could explain what 'exiting the EU' actually means. Then I would be clear as to what Leave voters were voting for.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

I'm not pretending anything. In fact, I never mentioned economic matters at all.

Harika · 19-03-2018 10:37PM

I don't think immigration was put deliberately into the UK, but people from Eastern Europe were welcomed, and as most of them learned English in school, the UK was a logical destination, compared to France or Germany. Even as those mostly worked and put in more than they got out of the social system they were the scapegoats of the austerity politic and the anti EU sentiment was riding on that easy target that has no lobby to defend itself.

Sam Russell · 19-03-2018 10:38PM

Sand wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

It would be interesting to contrast the Scottish Indy ref and the EU ref.

The Scottish one was fought on economics - would Scotland be better off as an independent country or better off staying within the UK? Would oil revenues be enough to sustain an independent Scotland? Would Scotland be allowed to remain in the EU and use Sterling? etc. etc.

The EU referendum was fought on the leave side by emotions. Take back control, Brussels unelected bureaucrats (despite the fact that the UK has many unelected bureaucrats but call them Civil Servants), £350m a week for the NHS (which holds an extraordinary emotional attachment to the people of the UK). Less immigration (despite the fact that EU immigration was minuscule in comparison with non-EU migration). etc. etc.

If Scottish ref had been fought on emotion, (Take back control, etc.) would they have succeeded in getting their independence? If the EU ref had been fought on real facts, would the result have been the other way, and would it have been decisive for a generation?

Water John · 19-03-2018 10:43PM

Sam, it shows the crucial role, in framing any debate. The one who gets to set the agenda has a great start.

Thargor · 19-03-2018 11:04PM

Interesting Facebook story on Johnson since before the referendum, I suppose if they had a functioning media that quote might have been put to him at some point on camera:

Bit cynical · 19-03-2018 11:05PM

I think one of the optimistic aspects of the agreement from Ireland's point of view is that the UK will be able to negotiate and ratify its own trade deals with countries outside the EU. This was one of the principles on the UK side and the EU accepting this is good for Ireland.

Dont be at yourself · 19-03-2018 11:09PM

Sky News pretty openly framing today's agreement on NI as a "fudge", "kicking the can down the road".

LeinsterDub · 19-03-2018 11:12PM

Theresa May faced a storm of protest over a transition deal struck with Brussels after conceding a series of her high-profile Brexit demands and agreeing to the “back stop” plan of keeping Northern Ireland under EU law to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/19/uk-and-eu-agree-terms-for-brexit-transition-deal

Just as day follows night the Tory outrage begins. We'll have 2 months of attempted Tory row backs now before the EU comes and tells the kids yard time is over time to get back to work.

Anthracite · 19-03-2018 11:36PM

Sand wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

The point has been made by me and others that there are probably dozens of mutually exclusive reasons why people voted for Brexit.

As a super-simple example, you have some who voted for Brexit as the EU is too left-wing, and some who voted for it because they feel the EU is too right-wing.

One or both of those constituencies is going to be disgusted with the outcome (likely the latter).

Sand · 19-03-2018 11:40PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/19/uk-and-eu-agree-terms-for-brexit-transition-deal

Just as day follows night the Tory outrage begins. We'll have 2 months of attempted Tory row backs now before the EU comes and tells the kids yard it over its time to get back to work.

No other outcome is reasonably possible. NI under EU legislation to ensure no border in Ireland, and the UK-EU maintaining the closest possible alignment so that the 'sea border' between NI/UK and the border between EU/UK is as light as is possible. If the UK plays it right, it could use the NI/UK trade concerns to get some allowances made in the EU/UK deal.

The DUP will kick up a fuss, but I think if the UK's feet are held to the fire we'll see a Tory-Labour pact to get the deal through the HoC. Labour wont benefit from being seen to force the UK into a 'no-deal' Brexit for purely party political reasons. I think if May had sense back in 2016 she would have approached Labour for some sort of national unity government.

Water John · 20-03-2018 12:17AM

JRM on Newsnight very unhappy with interim deal, but willing to accept if the final deal is to his liking. Says, 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, overides paragraph on backstop NI and ROI alignment and will use his vote accordingly'.

Stupid clown, walks across the live camera, on the next guest, leaving the studio.

Brexit discussion thread III

Comments