Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
I much prefer the the reality of the other Sunday Times article Howard . “Parliament takes back control- from the people”. A constitional coup.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,987
Neil Moors wrote:BBC Parliament viewing figures are going to go through the roof!
But not, one suspects, going through the 'yoof', who will remain in bed watching Jeremy Kyle.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Paul Watkins wrote:I much prefer the the reality of the other Sunday Times article Howard . “Parliament takes back control- from the people”. A constitional coup.
Indeed Paul but the ERG coves and Farage have been going on about the Sovereignty of Parliament and now it looks like they have got their wish. I rather like the idea of back bench MPs of all parties "taking back control" from the PM and her brown nosed followers.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Paul refers to this article by Dominic Lawson.
Debating points are all very well, but they don’t necessarily become truer — or even true at all — by being endlessly repeated. For example, it is forever being said by those opposed to Brexit: “The ‘leave’ campaign argued for a restoration of full parliamentary sovereignty. Now parliament is doing just that by ‘taking back control’ of Brexit. Ha!” But the argument of the leave campaign was for a restoration of accountability to British voters and away from a supranational authority: a fully sovereign parliament simply meant one not superseded by the European Court of Justice. Moreover, when agreeing to pass the referendum bill — by no fewer than 554 votes to 53 — parliament directly handed that decision to the people. The people (by a majority of more than a million) duly made their decision. Honouring that, parliament then agreed to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which meant that on March 29, 2019, the UK would cease to be a member of the European Union. Subsequently, in the 2017 general election, both Labour and Conservative campaigned — and won 82.4% of votes cast — on manifestos pledging to honour the referendum result.
It is true the referendum gave no instruction (nor could have done) on the precise terms on which Britain would leave, or indeed on how the relationship with the EU would operate thereafter. Only one thing was absolutely clear: we would leave. So the effort of many in parliament now to revoke article 50 is nothing less than the use (or rather abuse) of parliamentary sovereignty as a weapon against the people who elected it: MPs are to “take back control” from those who give parliament its sole claim to legitimacy, or indeed, moral authority. As Robert Tombs, the author of that magisterial tome The English and Their History, observes: “The House of Commons seems to be trying to turn itself into another House of Lords. The upper house’s legitimacy is (or was) based on the superior status of its members . . . The Lords claimed the right to veto the will of the plebs because the elite knew better. That came to an end in 1911, after a bitter conflict between ‘the peers and the people’.”
As Tombs argues, it is a rash House of Commons that attempts a similar battle: in the crisis that would follow “if the whole system broke down . . . I doubt very much that the ultimate focus of people’s loyalty is the membership of the House of Commons”. In other words, those who claim to be upholding the authority of parliament are running the grave risk of destroying it, with consequences that can only be imagined.
As that distinguished Cambridge professor also pointed out, if parliament took effective charge of the negotiations with the EU (but without actually sitting at the negotiating table), it would be arrogating to itself decision-making that had never before been seized from a British government. Given that it is only the executive branch that has the responsibility of governing, of giving orders — of making sure things actually work — parliament would be claiming the role Stanley Baldwin (in words written by his cousin Rudyard Kipling) attributed to the press in the 1930s: “Power without responsibility.”
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Your version of parliament taking control from government is surely a form of anarchy. You vote for something, expect it to be passed & enacted but others then decide they know better (maybe they do, but I doubt it from my experience of politics) & reverse your enfranchised vote.
Hey I don’t mind an odd voting rebellion but a grouping that defys a Million plus majority is pure disdain & political anarchy , albeit cross party treachery.
Guest 3065 likes this
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
It seems that the must use term of the moment is "anarchy". As the extent of the mendacity and potential harm becomes more and more apparent, so the threats of anarchy and unrest proliferate.
Surely real believers in democracy would back a second vote given the changes in demographics and the discovery of real facts as opposed to fiction that the last 3 years has brought? I mean, come on, remember what the real believers in democracy said when it suited them....
"Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed"
"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy".
"In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way"
And who were the purveyors of these wise words? Rees-Mogg, David Davies and Farage respectively. If this bunch of bloated, self-important hypocrites now feel it is fine to change their minds, then why can't the British public have the right to change theirs if they so wish?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
The cross party group of MPs have not said anything about revoking Article 51 so any talk of anti democratic behaviour is just scare mongering. We could be entering a new political phase on Wednesday whereby the PM and her associates become history and I think the EU would think again on any leaving deal if they know that they are dealing with a group that has parliamentary support rather than just an extreme but small section of one party.
The Tories will find it very difficult to hold their party together with some of their number joining a new party led by Nigel Farage with serious money from hedge fund managers behind him.
Guest 3065 likes this
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Which is Article 51 Howard? Have they passed another one I’ve missed? It could happen Bercow is devious enough to changed more rules.
Guest 3065 likes this
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,822
From what I understand with the present Brexit plans we leave virtually in name only, a few advantages but still a lot of control from the EU.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Yes - how dare you leave us with a typo Howard? It's so much more noteworthy than addressing the real issues, isn't it?
Guest 3065 and howard mcsweeney1 like this
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,987
Anything is better than Jon Snow on Ch4!
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Guest 3065- Registered: 10 Jan 2019
- Posts: 145
Howard
Let's just say if they did this there would be such a uprising never been seen before rioting etc that in the end they would have deliver brexit
Guest 3065- Registered: 10 Jan 2019
- Posts: 145
BrexitCentral
November 25, 2018
Parliament cannot simply ‘block No Deal’ as some are claiming – it’s the default option
Parliament cannot simply ‘block No Deal’ as some are claiming – it’s the default option
Stewart Jackson Written by
Stewart Jackson
Stewart Jackson was Conservative MP for Peterborough between 2005 and 2017 and served as Chief of Staff and Special Advisor to Rt Hon David Davis MP as Brexit Secretary between 2017 and 2018.
twitter-icon facebook-sidebar email-sidebar
The hardcore Remainers who are determined to thwart Brexit – a democratic decision taken by over 33 million people after a six-month campaign and which resulted in a clear decision and the biggest electoral mandate in our history – seem to believe that if they keep saying things which are palpably untrue on enough occasions, then they become facts. One of those “factoids” which is the subject of received wisdom by people like Hilary Benn, Amber Rudd and Sir Keir Starmer who should know better is that Parliament can “block No Deal”. In Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty tells the eponymous heroine that “words mean what I want them to mean”. Remoaners take a similar view, irrespective of the facts. It isn’t so. Nor is it possible to surmise how the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer can plausibly make the case that there is a good chance of a “No Brexit”. It was for the very reason that David Davis and I knew that Remainer refuseniks would use every low and disreputable parliamentary trick in the book to disavow the settled will of the electorate in 2016, that during the Committee Stage of the EU Withdrawal Bill earlier this year, DExEU ministers insisted that the exact date of our departure from the European Union (11pm on 29th March 2019) should be enshrined in primary legislation, clearly on the face of the Act. We ensured that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 was the first clause of the then Bill too. Likewise, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is explicit that all the treaties of the European Union will cease to have effect in respect of a departing Member State at the conclusion of a two-year period – and this is enshrined now as an international treaty obligation. Furthermore, the idea of attaching a plethora of so-called “Christmas tree” amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration is otiose too. As has been confirmed in evidence to parliamentary select committees by Sir David Natzler, the principal constitutional advisor to the House of Commons and its Chief Clerk, such legislative tricks are effectively giant Early Day Motions – parliamentary wallpaper which would have no statutory effect. Put simply, if Parliament wishes to have a second referendum or set aside Article 50, then MPs will have to find time to legislate for such an outcome and before 29th March 2019. No deal is therefore the de facto backstop, to coin a phrase. We don’t particularly want it, but it’s a guarantee that the will of the people will be adhered to. In short, you cannot wish away the EU Referendum Act 2015, the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 on a whim. It is simply anathema to our unwritten constitutional settlement. Similarly, MPs cannot press for an early general election without removing the legislative lock of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which is why the Prime Minister’s implied threat that voting down her capitulation deal will inevitably result in an early general election is baseless. Who knew that the heroes of Brexit might very well be Ms Gina Miller and Dominic Grieve QC MP? Their doughty fight for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the legislative Brexit process has, in a counter-intuitive manner, protected the outcome from evisceration by the Establishment and other vested interests such as foreign multinationals, Whitehall mandarins and the liberal media, all of which hate the freely made and reasoned decision of the British people in 2016. Without Ms Miller’s Supreme Court case demolishing a central tenet of the Royal Prerogative and establishing the imperative of Parliament legislating for the invocation of Article 50 (and one reasonably assumes its revocation by statute too) and Mr Grieve’s insistence on a meaningful vote in both Commons and Lords, Brexit could have been destroyed by the untrammelled use of Royal Prerogative by Theresa May. The good sense of the British people to humble her for her hubris and arrogance at the 2017 General Election, which resulted in an avoidable hung Parliament, likewise meant that eurosceptic Conservative MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party have curtailed the chances of her signing an even more disastrous deal with Brussels and have put her on notice of a calamitous parliamentary rout in several weeks’ time unless she reconsiders her policy. Imagine Mrs May with a landslide majority and the full powers of Royal Prerogative! Therefore, the real choice soon to be made by Members of Parliament across the political spectrum, in pragmatic terms, is not between the Prime Minister’s terrible punishment deal and a No Deal or World Trade Organisation trading deal; but in fact between the latter and an improved deal with the European Union, in respect of both the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration. How many Conservative MPs truly believe that they must take the thinnest of gruel offered to them by Mrs May, because apparently the British people just “want to get on with it”? A deal signed off by the European Union Council of Ministers in just 38 minutes yesterday; a deal even rubbished by the EU-compliant CBI? The key date for MPs to ponder is 21st January 2019 when the Prime Minister is obliged under the Withdrawal Act to come before Parliament and thereafter lay a neutral motion before the House on why a deal has or has not been agreed with the EU. That is the true deadline for securing a much better deal which honours the decision of the British people to take back control of their borders, laws and money at the referendum. At that stage, I fully expect the Establishment and, in particular, Speaker Bercow to conspire to block Brexit as a final throw of the die, by seeking to allow the Standing Orders of the Commons to, in some way, be set aside so that the Commons could pass an affirmative resolution to extend Article 50 or rescind it. Such tactics will fail but would nevertheless have a terrible impact on the faith and trust people have in our parliamentary democracy and be corrosive to the implied contract made with the British people in 2016 when politicians promised the poll would settle the European issue for a generation. It would also give rise to anger and resentment and the rise of extremists on both the Left and Right. And, not the least, it would cleft the Conservative Party in two. The stakes could not be higher. Conservative MPs will need to think about how history will judge them. I believe that most, when pushed, would rather the short term pain of a No Deal rather than suffer the purgatory of being effectively an EU colony and the strong likelihood of another 25-year Tory civil war over Europe. The Prime Minister has consistently shown herself unwilling to compromise with her own parliamentary colleagues and, as such, must expect them in extremis to be brutal in putting the country and party’s interests before her own short-term and receding prospects, in the next few weeks. It appears the only way out of what will soon be an unprecedented existential crisis.
Big Picture Conservatives EU Withdrawal Bill Most Popular OpinionTags: "no-deal Brexit", Amber Rudd, Article 50, David Davis, Dominic Grieve, EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, EU Referendum Act 2015, EU Withdrawal Act 2018, EU Withdrawal Bill, European Communities Act 1972, Fixed Term Parliaments Act, Gina Miller, Hilary Benn, John Bercow, Philip Hammond, Royal Prerogative, Sir David Natzler, Sir Keir Starmer, Stewart Jackson, Theresa May
Copyright BrexitCentral 2019 Privacy Policy Contact Us
Guest 3065- Registered: 10 Jan 2019
- Posts: 145
Now this man should be our prime Minster he has the right idea
Abbot sorts Brexit. And I dont mean Dianne.
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----
It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.
Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
Jan Higgins and Captain Haddock like this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,033
"so there’s no money to collect" - wrong (and money to refund on outbound traffic). Doesn't have to be done at the border I accept, but let's keep it factual shall we.
(Not my real name.)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
A shrewd business person will always see an opportunity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-46814527Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,822
Without resorting to either party politics or how we feel about leaving the EU and be honest enough to admit Teresa May, her negotiating team and her Cabinet sidekicks have made a 'pig's ear' of the whole thing.
Brian Dixon and Guest 3065 like this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 3065- Registered: 10 Jan 2019
- Posts: 145
We are definitely coming out it's the law now
news.com.au
World
Europe
Brexit bill becomes law, allowing UK to leave the EU
JUNE 27, 2018 2:41AM
Brexit bill translates thousands of EU laws to the UK
AFPnews.com.au
A BILL enacting Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has become law after months of debate, the House of Commons speaker announced today, to cheers from Eurosceptic politicians.
Speaker John Bercow said the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which repeals the 1972 European Communities Act through which Britain became a member of the bloc, had been given the formal royal assent by Queen Elizabeth II.
Tens of thousands of people marched in central London to demand a final vote on any UK exit deal, on the second anniversary of the Brexit vote. Picture: MEGA
Tens of thousands of people marched in central London to demand a final vote on any UK exit deal, on the second anniversary of the Brexit vote. Picture: MEGA
The bill transfers decades of European law onto British statute books, and also enshrines Brexit day in British law as March 29, 2019 at 11:00pm GMT.
Prime Minister Theresa May said the approval was a “historic moment for our country, and a significant step towards delivering on the will of the British people”, who had voted in a June 2016 referendum to exit the EU.
The bill has undergone more than 250 hours of acrimonious debate in the Houses of Parliament since it was introduced in July 2017.
Eurosceptics celebrated the passing of the bill through parliament last week as proof that, despite continuing uncertainty in the negotiations with Brussels, Brexit was happening.
“Lest anyone is in any doubt, the chances of Britain not leaving the EU are now zero,” International Trade Minister Liam Fox said.
Prime Minister Theresa May said the approval was a “historic moment for our country, and a significant step towards delivering on the will of the British people”. Picture: AFP
Prime Minister Theresa May said the approval was a “historic moment for our country, and a significant step towards delivering on the will of the British people”. Picture: AFP
Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, a staunch Brexit supporter, said: “The legal position is now so much stronger for a clean Brexit.
“Crucially this makes the prime minister’s negotiating hand much stronger.” Another Eurosceptic, Conservative MP Dominic Raab, said May would go to an EU summit later this week “with the wind in her sails”.
The government had a tough time getting the bill through parliament and was forced to concede some power to politicians over the final Brexit deal agreed with Brussels.
The Brexit ministry said in a statement the new law would ensure “a smooth and orderly exit” by giving the government temporary powers to make changes to legislation.
The ministry said additional laws “will deliver the more significant policy changes needed as a result of our exit”.
Demonstrators carry banners and flags as they participate in the People's March demanding a People's Vote on the final Brexit deal, in central London on June 23. Picture: AFP
Further battles are expected in the House of Commons in the coming weeks, when MPs debate two bills on trade — with pro-Europeans seeking to force the government to keep close ties with the bloc.
May has yet to set out her plans for customs arrangements after Brexit, which have become a major stumbling block in talks with Brussels.
She will gather her top ministers after the EU summit, which starts on Thursday, to thrash out their differences with the aim of publishing a Brexit blueprint shortly after.
read next
Polish mayor stabbed in charity event attack
The mayor of a large Polish city has been stabbed while on stage at a charity event before being rushed to hospital.
EUROPE
Avalanche kills skiers in Austria
Three people have died and a fourth is missing after an avalanche struck in the Austrian Alps, close to where an Australian teen died in the snow just days ago.
EUROPE
May could be gone by Wednesday
British Prime Minister Theresa May could be kicked out on Wednesday if her Brexit deal collapses, but has warned MPs the ramifications would be “catastrophic”.
EUROPE
Trump concealed Putin meeting notes
No detailed records have been kept of meetings between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin from the past two years, even in classified files.
NORTHAMERICA
Birthing nurse ‘pulls head off baby’
Warning: Graphic. It’s alleged a nurse pulled too hard while assisting in the delivery of a baby, fatally injuring the newborn and hiding the body.
ASIA
Spy camera used to watch nanny shower
A woman has claimed that the parents of the kids she was looking after used a camera to spy on her in the bathroom where she showered and changed.
REAL LIFE
Steve Buscemi’s wife Jo Andres dies
Artist and filmmaker Jo Andres, who was married to Reservoir Dogs actor Steve Buscemi for more than 30 years, has died aged 65.
ENTERTAINMENT
Massive snowstorm hits midwest America
Midwest America has been hit by a massive winter snowstorm, which has played a factor in at least five road deaths.
NORTHAMERICA
Body found in Paris bakery rubble
Rescuers have uncovered a body in the rubble at a Paris bakery destroyed by a powerful explosion caused by a gas leak, tragically bringing the death toll to four.
EUROPE
Trump rages as shutdown makes history
The US President has taken aim at Democrats, saying they could solve a partial government shutdown “in 15 minutes”, as the closure of federal agencies hits a record.
NORTHAMERICA
A NOTE ABOUT RELEVANT ADVERTISING: We collect information about the content (including ads) you use across this site and use it to make both advertising and content more relevant to you on our network and other sites. Find out more about our policy and your choices, including how to opt-out.
News Limited Copyright © . All times AEDT (GMT +11).
Back to top
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Jan Higgins wrote:Without resorting to either party politics or how we feel about leaving the EU and be honest enough to admit Teresa May, her negotiating team and her Cabinet sidekicks have made a 'pig's ear' of the whole thing.
Where do I start? Firstly many say that we triggered Article 50(or was it 49) too early, I say the opposite. Member states were taken by surprise when the result came in and we then gave 9 months notice for the best brains of 27 countries to put together a united front.
We then had David Davis as Brexit Secretary who did not visit Brussels once in the first quarter of 2017 and the ones following him were equally out of their depth. Mrs Merkel repeatedly asked our PM what the UK wanted and the answer coming back each time was "make me an offer"!! Today the PM is giving a speech on her deal to staff at a factory in Stoke on Trent, does anyone know why?
Jan Higgins likes this
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"