theological wrote: Johnson's deal is a moderate Brexit agreement with good provisions for Northern Ireland. His deal is one that both sensible leavers and remainers who accepted the result and want to move on (I suspect this is most 2016 remainers at this stage) can get around.
eskimohunt wrote: The Surrender-Bennite Act should never have been passed. It's an egregious example of collaborationism between Remainers with EU forces.
Allegations that Moscow money has flowed into the Conservative party via emigres living in the UK making high-profile donations, were also heard by the committee – although the party has consistently denied receiving money improperly. In 2014, Lubov Chernukhin – the wife of the former Russian deputy finance minister – paid £160,000 to play tennis with Johnson and David Cameron. The match was the star lot at a Conservative summer party auction. Another guest at the 2013 fundraiser was Vasily Shestakov, Vladimir Putin’s judo partner. Committee members were also briefed on an extraordinary – and for a while an apparently successful – attempt to penetrate Conservative circles by Nalobin, who instigated a pro-Kremlin parliamentary group, the Conservative Friends of Russia. ... Conservative Friends of Russia held its 2012 launch party in the Russian ambassador’s Kensington garden, with about 250 Russian and British guests present, including Tories who went on to play a prominent role in the referendum campaign. One was Matthew Elliott, now chief executive of pro-Brexit group Vote Leave, alongside Dominic Cummings, now the prime minister’s chief strategist. Another guest was Johnson’s future girlfriend Carrie Symonds, a Tory party activist. At the time she worked in the office of John Whittingdale, the pro-Brexit MP who was the group’s honorary vice-president. The group collapsed after revelations of Nalobin’s alleged ties with the Kremlin’s SVR foreign intelligence agency.
Imreoir2 wrote: » PM Johnson and Co. seem to be going on such a wide outflanking manouver that they risk falling off a cliff. Surely there is only so much support to be gained at the far end of the hard Brexit spectrum. He is not going to be more credible or more hard core on Brexit than Farage to the hard Brexiteer anyway, it seems like an act of futility to me to try and out Brexit the Brexit party.
VinLieger wrote: » And yet you support brexit which will lead to trade deals with the likes of india and china where massive levels of immigration will be a key part of those countries demands.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I agree. One of the faults with the UK government, and this goes back many years, is that they had the ability to control non-EU migration (and to some extent, EU migration) but did next to nothing to control the numbers. They should have made a positive effort. In fact, had they done so, Brexit may not have happened. That said, my comment above refers to the "principle" of migration, independent of the UK or any other country.
Deleted User wrote: » And if they win a majority, will you accept the result and the political implications of said result?
[Deleted User] wrote: » And if they win a majority, will you accept the result and the political implications of said result?
Joe_ Public wrote: » Vote tory for no deal. Predictable stuff, the ongoing strategy of how to outflank farage & tbp.https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1191442809666060288?s=20
strandroad wrote: » They will believe Johnson; it's the Brexit bus mark 2. His message (worthless like any other pledge from him) is spend spend spend, and voters want their simple comforts at this stage.
[Deleted User] wrote: » That's quite simply incorrect. The Surrender-Bennite Act handed power from the UK Prime Minister - who hitherto was handling Brexit - to the EU in two important respects: first, it forced the Prime Minister to take an axe to his pledge to leave the EU on 31 October; second, it empowered the EU to allow an extension for as long as possible. 31 January was the recommended date, but the EU could easily have proposed 31 December 2020. The EU had the trump card, not Johnson. For a UK parliament to shamelessly stitch-up their own Prime Minister, handing that power and influence to EU forces, demonstrates exactly what I mean to say - namely, that no matter what way you square that circle, it cannot - ever - be described as the UK "taking back control". That is the height of doublespeak you, ironically, have levelled against me.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Didnt see the poll but heard it referred on sky this morning claiming voters trust boris johnson more on the nhs. I was frankly amazed and alarmed to hear that, as well as suspicious. If they can keep it top of the agenda i cant see how labour fail to reap a rich harvest from it. If they can't win on nhs, i dont know what they can win on quite frankly.
hotmail.com wrote: » Agree with all of that, but I don't think people will vote just based on Brexit. This is the problem with the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party. The NHS is already beginning to become an election issue for example. It's possible that we could end up with a similar result of 2017.
[Deleted User] wrote: » True, I mean - taken broadly - this is what the UK electorate is faced with:Corbyn - a deal of some kind, polished off with a concluding referendum. Johnson - a deal itself, polished off without a referendum. and... Liberal Democrats - annulment of Article 50; triggering political turmoil. Brexit Party - a No Deal outcome; triggering political turmoil. In this context, then, it's understandable why voters are flocking back to Labour and the Conservative Parties - namely, a conclusion of some form is envisioned. With the Liberal Democrats and Brexit Party, the same cannot be said. Furthermore, Brexit fatigue has set in; perhaps the panacea for that is a return to things the way they were before Brexit had happened.
[Deleted User] wrote: » It's difficult to tell surely, at this early stage. That said, given how effective Corbyn is as a campaigner (even though I profoundly disagree with his policies), I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a hung parliament, though perhaps with the Brexit Party holding the balance of power for a Tory government. That's what I imagine Farage is hoping for; it maximizes his power leverage.
hotmail.com wrote: » It's early days of course. But I feel it's been a bad start for the smaller parties. Nigel Farage is not even bothering to contest the election and the new leader of the Lib Dems is a car crash, possibly worse than Tim Farron, her predecessor. So it's no wonder the electorate will revert to emotional loyalties in such circumstances and vote with the party that they truly 'belong' to.
Deleted User wrote: » It's difficult to tell surely, at this early stage. That said, given how effective Corbyn is as a campaigner (even though I profoundly disagree with his policies), I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a hung parliament, though perhaps with the Brexit Party holding the balance of power for a Tory government. That's what I imagine Farage is hoping for; it maximizes his power leverage.
Enzokk wrote: » This is just depressing really,https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1191391040906891264?s=20 So EEA Nationals paid in more than £15.5b in income tax and NI than they claimed in benefits. That is a lot of money that will need to be found to fund all those extra police and hospitals and NHS staff that the Tories will promise to employ and build, if they want to continue their Brexit plans.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Put tersely, the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit. Fine. But Johnson came back with a deal, and yet parliament voted for an extension anyway.
hotmail.com wrote: » Latest polls showing support for the two main parties is growing. It looks like 2017 all over again at the moment.
Deleted User wrote: » But Proverbs 28:6 is worth a mention here: Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.
Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.
Imreoir2 wrote: » One wonders why people think that giving more control to an institution with such a poor track record in this area, at least in the minds of those who oppose migration, will leed to a better outcome.
Deleted User wrote: » Derail? I've been directly asked, several times, to respond to what others have asked of me. If you have an issue, you should contact a Mod rather than posting that through here. Put tersely, the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit. Fine. But Johnson came back with a deal, and yet parliament voted for an extension anyway. You are somehow assuming that the Opposition is somehow the beacon of sincerity in their intentions. They're not, as their actions have shown.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
