ml1dch

Isn't it the centrists like Umunna and Leslie that are doing the actual opposing at the moment, while Corbyn et al wave through Conservative party legislation that will banjax the country?

Dickens uses it in Nicholas Nickleby to describe the local MP Mr Gregsbury.

Personally, I'm just surprised that Tony is upset about there being not enough EU regulation.

Turns out that some trips to cemeteries that might upset Jewish people are A Very Bad Thing. Some though are fine.

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got til it's gone..."

Shock at The Heil as they discover that the consequence of ending free movement is that movement is no longer free.

To fair, Sky have been very good through this whole thing. They are the ones asking the questions that the BBC are refusing to, and have been doing for a long time.

Not really. There is no reason why this is a terrible idea that wasn't also true two years ago.

You'll be able to use the benefit of your wisdom to explain why they're all wrong then.

People aren't trying to foretell the future. They're explaining the known consequences of a particular action. If someone (let's call him Gideon Osbourne) says "if people vote this way then the economic consequences mean that 500,000 people will lose their jobs" then that's a prediction. And not a very good one. If someone says "if we leave without coming to an alternative arrangement, then we will leave the EASA, and until a new treaty is agreed, then planes will not be taking off or landing because the legal basis for them to do so will not exist" that is the absolute, defined-in-law outcome. Arrangements might be made which mean that consequence never comes to pass, but until those new arrangement are made then it's not a nebulous, who-can-possibly-tell-what-will-happen situation. You just have to look at what the laws say to find out.

An opinion which is backed up by the result of the referendum in 1975. Or not.

Second. Greenland were first

The country's own choices will make sure we regret it. The other countries don't have to do anything but let the contradictions of the UK's wishes punch each other in the face. And yes, as you said - we shouldn't have voted to leave. But we did. And when you voted for that, there must have been "the thing you wanted". Nothing has changed since 2016. No options that we had then have been taken off the table. Edit - and a small piece of advice, if you think we're now going down the wrong path, is arguing with people who agree with you on that point about why you want to leave the best course of action?

Who on earth is "their"? I think you mean "our". The European Union is not the Commission, it's not the Parliament. It's the collective group of 28 countries, including (currently) the UK. Incidentally, all of this is irrelevant. This is 2016's conversation. The vote is over. More people were convinced by your argument than ours. Well done. So now tell us how you plan to make it work. You've got seven months left.

More excellent evidence as to why a further referendum on this isn't really going to solve the problem. No matter how much evidence is placed in front of people, if they don't want to believe it then they'll just carry on in the little world of fantasy.

So we're in a weird, topsy-turvy world where The S*n is on the right side of morality and the BBC are the ones pandering to the worst of elements of society.

This is the only part that I take issue with - but given it's the "what will actually happen" part it's kind of a biggie. It talks of the transition period as if it's something that is in the bag, and in the absence of anything else we just roll into it. But as things stand today, there is no agreed transition. The other countries have said that transition only happens if the withdrawal agreement is settled and that is only settled once an acceptable solution to Ireland is found. But for an acceptable solution for Ireland to be found, parliament has to come to an agreement and we're back to the top of his list of reasons why parliament won't come to an agreement. It's possible that the other countries will hang Ireland out to dry, but nothing they've said up to now suggests that they will.

It's a comparison worth making. The difference is though that A) he was the outlet for those on the left of Labour. Europhobic Tories have their Goves, Moggs and Leadsoms. If they want someone with the terrible politics of Johnson without the shameless, self-serving narcissism, they have choices. B ) Corbyn would never have made it to the ballot if those proposing him thought he had a chance of winning (some of those who nominated him have said as much). Not really the case here. There's definitely a path through. I reckon it needs Reeg-Mogg to endorse him rather than running himself. Which I reckon he will (endorse, not run). It also needs as few Brexity types as possible running. Apparently there are as many as forty MPs considering it when the time comes. Those who don't back Boris at the start, will mainly transfer to Patel, Raab, Gove etc keeping ABDPJ out of the final two. It also needs two of three from Gove, Javid and Hunt to crash and burn. Gove has lost support massively since Chequers, but the other two have done well (from a Tory MP's perspective, not a normal human's perspective). I reckon Hunt's current shouting tour of Europe about how everything is still the EU's fault is doing him the world of good with the base. Which is good, because it's precisely who it's aimed at. I spend more time reading ConservativeHome.com than is healthy (any amount of time at all basically)

Oh, absolutely. It's a moving situation, and they'll probably do the thing that they think is most likely to keep them in power. If that means nominating Boris then they'll hold their nose and do it. The counter though is that his persona is now permanently welded to Brexit. The further round the u-bend that goes, the further they might go in the direction of someone who can say to the electorate "look, I told you this was stupid all along". If the country is on fire next spring and May quits, Boris might struggle to claim that none of it is his fault

The Conservative party system doesn't really work for him though. If he gets through to the final two candidates then he's a shoe-in among the members. But he's pretty hated amongst the PCP, so it would be a massive surprise if his name got as far as that.

I'd guess he doesn't mean pariah. Change that to say, martyr and it makes more sense.

Yaxley-Lennon freed on bail by the Court of Appeal. So the far-right now have their Nelson Mandela.

I'd guess his brain is so hard-wired to saying that such-and-such ISN'T EVEN IN THE EU!, and he didn't register that the discussion was on the G7, not the EU.

He's probably UKIPPy enough. That Arron Banks really knows his stuff.

I'm not sure there is an option available that isn't. The situation up until recently of making Italy deal with anybody who came across the Mediterranean from Libya and making Greece just deal with anyone coming via Turkey and making it their problem wasn't viable. Having a supranational policy is only going to work if everyone is happy to play their part and many demonstrably aren't. Plus the Council dictating individual member state migration policy isn't a great look at the moment. Having a couple of countries (i.e Germany) deciding to suspend the Dublin Regulation doesn't work, as group responsibility will just be handed over to them wholesale. I assume we all agree that "just turning back anybody from Africa and the Middle East, regardless of circumstance" isn't really a suitable policy either. Whether as a group or as individual countries I'm not sure that there is a possible policy option available that isn't appalling in some way.