Highfield Saint

and neither would be part of a mainstream party in any other 1st world democracy. One is so far left and the other would be FN in France or AFD in Germany

Still going - over 1,030,000 now

800,000 and counting...

Surely the key phrase is "compared with a vote to remain" and on that basis had we remained we would have shown a small surplus of c. £1bn

Apparently the EU are concerned that if an extension is granted then UK will have a seat at the table which sets the next EU budget and that it may demand a better deal in order not to veto. Shouldn't this have been thought through when Article 50 was invoked? A big missed opportunity?

How ironic for those who voted out to reduce immigration that net non EU migration to Sept 2018 has increased to >250,000 #becarefulwhatyouwishfor

Go for it

Is this the same Targett that was given MoM recently?

The fans need to be up for this with loud and non stop support from the start. Let's smash these... COYR

Many thanks Shurlock. Maybe as realisation dawns that a compromise is inevitable it could be that it is more about finding a structure and set of words that allow all parties to claim success?

A Professor Aikharts (sp? He sounds Dutch and not sure I caught his name) was on Today programme this morning with some interesting thoughts on negating the Backstop and therefore avoiding a no deal. Something along the lines of proceeding with the Withdrawal Agreement in order to allow the Transition phase to begin on a provisional basis. It's about 1:17:30 in and is on for a couple of minutes. As I say it sounded interesting to m but I am by no means an expert so would appreciate thoughts and analysis from you guys if you have any time to listen... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00028bl

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/ one of many

Taking the embellished rhetoric away Mishra's points are hard to dispute though. p.s. your second Guardian link says that Soros was "Echoing a call made by David Cameron before the Brexit vote, he argued for the EU to allow member states to pursue “multi-track” relations with the bloc, rather than “ever closer union”."?

The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative Party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers. Even a columnist for The Economist, an organ of the British elite, now professes dismay over “Oxford chums” who coast through life on “bluff rather than expertise.” “Britain,” the magazine belatedly lamented last month, “is governed by a self-involved clique that rewards group membership above competence and self-confidence above expertise.” In Brexit, the British “chumocracy,” the column declared, “has finally met its Waterloo.” Pankaj Mishra, in the New York Times 17/01/2019

https://thebrexitsyndicate.com

What's wrong with Ings?

Next step..."but the rebirth of Scotland as an independent nation once again, free to control its own destiny perhaps. As it will be freed from Westminster, it could be fitting to have Cadburys chocolate behind each daily door"?

Replaced by??

I do disagree with your assertion that another vote would be undemocratic or that it would be ignoring the majority vote in the 2016 vote. Is it not fundamentally democratic to seek confirmation of the original result now that the terms are better known? This might confirm the original result or give a significant change of mind (a principle of democracy is the right and the ability to change its mind). This vote could be made binding as opposed to the advisory nature of the 2016 vote which would eliminate any repeat ad nauseam potential. An additional benefit would be to remove the "Westminster factor" and thereby eliminate any political and self interested manoeuvring by the various political groups who it seems are more motivated by self interest than by the best interests of the country. It might also stop the Tories self destructing and removing themselves from the potential for government.

I'm not entrenched in this like a lot of repeat posters on here but... Leadership challenge? If there is a change of leadership that will be the second unelected PM since cameron? That's just got to be wrong. Isnt the argument that we (as in the people, the governed) set our own laws and decisions not unelected representatives? Majority for the proposed deal? Probably not but there isnt a majority in parliament or in the country at large for any of the "options"? How do you resolve that? Second vote? The main objectors to this seem to be people who voted leave - wonder why that is? I personally cant see why anyone would object on democratic grounds? For extending the period of uncertainty and lack of positive action yes but democracy? The Tory party - apart from the fact that the general public will not forget the events of the last few years there is a distinct possibility that this will split the Tory party and create a chasm which would be filled by Labour. Could this be the last Conservative government for the foreseeable future?

I hope so. He can bring Falke with him as well if he wants

This is all a bit bizarre and purile tbh. Talk of Germany ruling Europe and coupled with insults and name calling from both sides (yes - sides and how stupid is that!)? Really? I heard a snippet on the Jeremy Vine R2 call in show at lunchtime today with the question from one caller being "why do you think the EU want us to stay?". The inference being that they want something and therefore we shouldn't give it. It's the same on here - I'm right and therefore you are wrong and we can't give in and accept what they want when maybe, just maybe, it might be a win-win where we can all benefit. It doesn't have to be about us versus them does it? The reference to our fathers and grandfathers not having given their lives in vain - really? The world moves on doesn't it? We don't make reference to the Napoleonic wars or countless other conflicts in the same way?

There is a plaque next to the Bargate commemorating the fact that 3m allied troops left Southampton to fight in the second World War. Songs of Praise at the weekend celebrating "Our great port city of Southampton" (their words not mine) said that 8m left or returned to Southampton in the first World War. They also majored on the Spitfire being designed and built in the city and how the war wouldn't have been won without this effort