Professor Moriarty wrote: » They'll still be able to disrupt proceedings in the European Parliament.
Igotadose wrote: » If the UK leave the EU, won't those MEP's be gone? Or is that after the 'transition' is over? I don't see why they should be allowed to be MEP's once the UK is 'gone.' Hopefully none of them are drawing an EU salary.
Igotadose wrote: » Caught some of Farage's announcement this a.m. at Westminster. Sad case of trying to claim some position that what Johnson's pushing for, isn't Brexit. Seems to me Farage is 'dead man walking' and the final nail into his coffin comes with this election. I can see BXP getting zero seats if Farage is their 'leader', dull speech, dull guy, nothing of substance and vacuous talking points like 'clean Brexit' which he'll never define. Won't miss him, to be fair.
quokula wrote: » He's gotten zero seats in every general election he's ever fought. Doesn't stop the UK media constantly giving him a platform and doesn't stop him raking in money from wealthy donors to help spread their message.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Am out of Ireland at the moment, trying to keep up between Rioja and lovely weather, sorry, but seriously, was the call between Farage and Trump for real or what. Or was it a UK version of Callans kicks.
Tell me how wrote: » It was real. In an ordinary world, you'd say that would play in to Labour/Lib Dem hands as they can probably more easily denounce the behaviour of Trump and how he does business but they are probably keeping an eye on the 'What if' in case they are in Government and he still is president.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Oh, the NHS forgot that bit, and the fact the Putin only speaks Russian too. :cool:
VinLieger wrote: » Is he still claiming that? Putin, a high level kgb agent from the cold War era only speaks russian....
briany wrote: » Farage and his Brexit party have about as much political depth as Homer Simpson did in the Simpsons episode where he ran for sanitation commissioner.
brick tamland wrote: » Yeah but he has the potential to really hit the torys hard, and he knows it. Although probably unlikely to return any seats they have the potential to cost the torys a lot of seats in close run constituencies. Probably only pole 5% in a lot of places but that hould be a huge hit as it'd all be coming from the tory vote. Very interesting to see how it plays out. Cant see Boris being able to get into arrangementwith them looking at their stupid asks.
briany wrote: » that could just prolong Brexit even more. Maybe that's what Farage wants in order to stay relevant, but he'd never admit that.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » this election has already taken on a whole new level of silliness. first Trump makes his daft telephone call to LBC, and now Farage thinks the WA should be 'er ditched. The UK is making places like Yemen or the DRC look like bastions of stability. My money is on a hung parliament, more musical chairs, chaos, and parliamentary shenanigans, followed by another election within 6 months.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Nothing is permanent really. It's as permanent as permanent can mean and it's not unionists who would ignite it, it would be a majority of the people in Northern Ireland. The same kind of majority I'd expect you would be calling for us to respect in the case of a vote for a UI
listermint wrote: » This entire posts is a rewrite of history. Lets be clear here. The bomb under the GFA was placed by the DUP when the DUP took out ads in the Metro in london pro brexit stance using money that we still dont know the origins of. So folks like yourself mention names like cummings or bannons. I mention funding and international influence. For you to turn it around on the Irish Government or indeed by extension Vradkar flies in the fact of all known facts and is in short - yawn
Valentino Abundant Thug wrote: » TBP appear to be handing Labour a massive head start in all this. Just days ago JC's crowd were about 10/1 to win most seats, today it's about half the value due to significant overnight shortening: The problem however is that unless they ditch the rather repulsive D'Abbot (very loose with facts & figures, and a far too shouty-shouty), they simply won't win. She is the eqivilent of the lad (Miliband) that was front-paged eating the bacon sambo awkwardly. Often folks are repulsed by the most simple of subconscious asthetics n' semiotics.
Enzokk wrote: » I for one will be happy for the EU to keep paying Farage a salary as an MEP for the next 5 years or more. I would also happily concede him making lots of money from media appearances for the rest of his life. As for how they will do, we don't know as they are actually offering an alternative to the Johnson plan that a lot of shouting audience members on QT has been calling for. Unless Johnson pivots to a FTA only relationship with the EU, which would be worse for the economy over the long term which would win him more BP voters but would alienate moderate Tories to the Lib Dems. I still see a lot of challenges for Johnson and the same as the arithmetic in the HoC, whichever way he goes will mean lost votes. Has anyone else noticed that his appearance seems to have become comical again? He went with a more stylish look before and during the leadership campaign but obviously his team thinks buddy Johnson is the better look now.https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1188799620606021633?s=20
trellheim wrote: » Is it wrong of me to despise Isabel Oakeshotthttps://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1190266189240524801 even my wife was roaring at her on QT last night and as for panels moderating their language she was the only one to use profanity (the word "bollox")
Russman wrote: » Apologies Mods for being a bit glib, but after reading that twitter thread I think I’m less intelligent than when I started it ! Surely there can’t be real people pushing the no deal and lets go to WTO terms narrative, can there ? They must be Bots, no ? If the posters on that feed are real and any way representative, the UK is in a very bad place.
Bit cynical wrote: » Well no. It was never envisaged that a lesser alternative to the backstop could be introduced before the transition period had even begun. The idea was that the transition period would start and then if the UK came up with something equal to or better than the backstop then that would be put in place. But the UK could be legally held to the backstop otherwise. Anything else would have constituted a renegotiation of the deal which had been ruled out at that point. If I had suggested back in, say, March that instead of the backstop some measure that would allow the North to vote on whether or not they place a border on the island, this would have been overwhelmingly rejected on this very forum I think you will agree. The overwhelming response would have been that the deal has already been done and they can either accept it, reject in and have no deal, or revoke A50. And this would have made sense. After all, at that point they were never going to take the no deal option and the other two options were acceptable from Ireland's and the EU's perspective. Only when Johnson said that they were leaving no matter what did things begin to change. The Benn Act did lessen Johnson's bargaining power but not completely and things had already started to move before then.
marno21 wrote: » There are a lot of bots pushing the idea, in addition to that there are real people who like the idea but they either a. Stand to benefit enormously from it b. Don’t understand what it means
Had a wonderful conversation with an 18-year-old waitress in our local pub at the weekend about EU and Brexit and so on... She confessed she didn't know anything about it all, and wanted to know WHY we wanted to leave and control our own affairs again. Lynn and I carefully explained to her what life was like in England when WE were 18 - and before the EU came to control everything. That you could leave a job on Friday as an 18 year old, and have a choice of 4 or 5 more to walk into on Monday - WITHOUT nonsense like a CV. You got an interview then and there, and were told: "OK, you can have a try out - come and start tomorrow". That the concept of Minimum Wage or Zero Hours contracts did not exist - that ANY firm offering such sh*t terms to people would never recruit ANYBODY - they would laugh, walk out the door, and down the road to somewhere better. That University was FREE - no loans, etc, you didn't leave with £50,000 of debt with a degree that could still only get you a job at McBurgers. That a house cost two and a half times a factory wage to buy - in today's terms about £40,000 max. That you could set up home together as man and wife at age 18 or 19, and afford to do it on ONE income, not TWO. We told her that Lynn had married at 18, and could shortly after stop work and have the babies she longed for. That I married at 22, my wife was 18, and I supported the two of us while we had two lovely children in quick succession. My wife did not HAVE to work - she chose to return to nursing later when the children were grown up enough. This poor girl's eyes were like organ stops. She was comparing all this to the world SHE knew - but she had NO idea that anything different had EVER existed. We told her that the place was NOT full or foreigners who bid up the price of houses and bid down the level of wages - foreigners to whom anything more than £30 a week is absolute RICHES, people that we can't keep out, courtesy of the EU. How are the young EVER going to be able to make a sensible decision about Brexit when they know NOTHING about how life could be outside the EU? The Remainers say that only old people want to Leave - well of course! We are the ones who KNOW how it used to be before the EU ruined everything. That life was better for ordinary people. Spread this please, share it, show it to as many young people as you can. They can't make a rational decision until they KNOW. We older people are the only ones who KNOW - we owe it to them to tell them!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d96cd5eb793ec44f833dd8d0bb2a52ac.svg)