The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

56 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

What bit blandy the British weaponry bit or the increase in population displacement due to war bit?

The bit I quoted. It's also improtant to distinguish between refugees from war and and economic migrants (though clearly if a war trashes your home, it's hard to earn any money. In terms of the UK and immigration, taking in assylum seekers and refugees is kind of seperate from economic migration from Eastern Europe or wherever, and a small factor overall.

Clearly there are a lot of refugees from Syria's war - though mostly not coming towards the UK (or even the EU). But the Syrian refugees for example are mostly not fleeing from UK weapons. Russian, Chinese, Iranian, American much more so. In Yemen - mostly American, Russian, North Korean and Iranian weaponry (though some British made, too). Elsewhere in the world is even less on topic and also is largely nothing to do with British weaponry.

[ml1dch]

4 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

The EU's immigration policies - Utterly appalling

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.

Edited July 31, 2018 by ml1dch

[lapal_fan]

If it were up to me, anybody could live where ever they wanted. 

Nice one if you've won the birth lottery and grew up not dying from AIDs/malnutrition/disease/famine/starvation. 

IDGAF what you look like, where you're from - as long as you don't bother me with shit, you're good.  

[HanoiVillan]

42 minutes ago, blandy said:

The bit I quoted. It's also improtant to distinguish between refugees from war and and economic migrants (though clearly if a war trashes your home, it's hard to earn any money. In terms of the UK and immigration, taking in assylum seekers and refugees is kind of seperate from economic migration from Eastern Europe or wherever, and a small factor overall.

Clearly there are a lot of refugees from Syria's war - though mostly not coming towards the UK (or even the EU). But the Syrian refugees for example are mostly not fleeing from UK weapons. Russian, Chinese, Iranian, American much more so. In Yemen - mostly American, Russian, North Korean and Iranian weaponry (though some British made, too). Elsewhere in the world is even less on topic and also is largely nothing to do with British weaponry.

If Wiki is to be believed, there are well over 100 combat aircraft (Eurofighters and Tornadoes) of British origin in the Saudi airforce, and combined with our role preparing and refuelling them we're very involved in the conflict. I know you're not arguing otherwise, but I wouldn't want to downplay the extent of our involvement. 

[VILLAMARV]

41 minutes ago, blandy said:

The bit I quoted. It's also improtant to distinguish between refugees from war and and economic migrants (though clearly if a war trashes your home, it's hard to earn any money. In terms of the UK and immigration, taking in assylum seekers and refugees is kind of seperate from economic migration from Eastern Europe or wherever, and a small factor overall.

Clearly there are a lot of refugees from Syria's war - though mostly not coming towards the UK (or even the EU). But the Syrian refugees for example are mostly not fleeing from UK weapons. Russian, Chinese, Iranian, American much more so. In Yemen - mostly American, Russian, North Korean and Iranian weaponry (though some British made, too). Elsewhere in the world is even less on topic and also is largely nothing to do with British weaponry.

a nice link from the possibly interesting maps thread had a great animated graphic on 2000-2016 of the Global Refugee Crisis. I assume the official classification of refugee used in this data set as a source would stand up to scrutiny although I haven't dug very deeply on that myself but the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is quoted. You can clearly see the trend towards Europe and the times the US and Russia have taken people in deals (Like the recent one with Turkey etc). I appreciate it does not include the last 2 years. But then in the context of the Brexit vote that's no big deal.

https://earthtime.org/stories/global_refugee_crisis_the_big_picture

Obviously I ultimately have no idea where our weaponry ends up. Or what assistance we provide to other nations involved in conflicts around the globe. I do think it's all on topic though.

And in the context of the point I was making with Vive it is important to distinguish between EU and Non EU immigration yes, but the whole point is lets not focus on some small aspect of the wider debate and miss the wood for the trees.

[VILLAMARV]

28 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

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.

Key word in all that for me. And I don't disagree with you at all. But remove that word and what are we left with?

And yet @lapal_fan nails it in 5 seconds. Yes it's an oversimplification. But why are people so eager and vehement in their defense of an institution like the EU when it doesn't agree with the core tenant of what most of us believe immigration Laws all around the world should be based upon. Which is what he says. And when people change EU to British Immigration they somehow become no more than pond scum in the eyes of so many?

And in relation to the fall out from last night's merry journey in here isn't that the reason Vive has come in here with all these media soundbites? Isn't that why we've been drip fed this rubbish in the first place? Isn't that the reason the news never tackled the issue properly? Because if they did and they did the research on real public opinion the answer would lie outside of the YES/NO choice wouldn't it? because everyone would have seen the simple humanitarian issue and called them on it.

how long did it take to paint Trump as the monster in the recent US immigration scandal just by shining the light on what actually happens on things like Twitter? a few hours? Whatever our feelings about that issue or any issue doesn't it prove the power of an informed public?

[snowychap]

14 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

11,500 Romanians unemployed is still quite a large number don’t you think?  Yes it’s not a reflection on Romanians as it’s around 2-3% of those that have arrived here that are not in work.  So a small percentage in that respect.

But it still suggest there’s an issue somewhere doesn’t it? Whether that’s deportation issues or lack of Jobs in this country.  It’s something that maybe could have been avoided if there was more control. 

In order to make an informed judgement of whether this was large or not and whether it suggested any sort of 'issue', it might be handy to have an idea of what that figure actually meant. Was it people unemployed for a long period of time or was it people moving from one period of employment to another period of employment, perhaps?

[HanoiVillan]

A long, but very good, summary of 'where we are now' from Stephen Bush:

Can the government avoid crashing out of the European Union without a deal?

'Could the United Kingdom leave the European Union without a deal – by mistake? That’s the disastrous event that Jeremy Hunt has warned against today, and it’s certainly possible.

The British government has a series of red lines that are, to put it mildly, difficult to reconcile with one another: no change in the border on the island of Ireland, no additional borders between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, no continuing role for the European Court of Justice and the freedom to strike our own trade deals, to name just a few of the incompatible aims that Theresa May has.

Added to that, there is no Brexit of any kind that can currently command either of the two necessary majorities for this government and this parliament to pass: the first is a majority within the Conservative parliamentary party and the second is a majority in parliament as a whole.

What will happen next? Here are some possibilities.

• Brexit without a deal

A recurrent phrase among Conservative MPs who favour some kind of soft Brexit is that there is no parliamentary majority for a no-deal Brexit. This is true, but unfortunately for them, this doesn’t matter. Because parliament has already triggered Article 50, Brexit will happen at midnight, Brussels time, on 29 March 2019 regardless of whether a deal has been reached.

On the face of it, this feels like the most likely outcome because it doesn’t require anyone to change. It doesn’t require any of the Brexit ultras to U-turn on their opposition to Theresa May’s Brexit strategy, or for Labour to bail the Tories out of their hole.

But the important thing about leaving without a deal is it means a Labour landslide. This is certainly true of a “pure” no deal, in which no arrangements are struck to allow planes to fly, to avoid chaos at ports and for hospitals to continue to source radioactive isotopes for cancer treatment. Frankly, anyone who believes that British voters would forgive a government that allows shortages of food, medicines and other goods should spend a little time on any train platform, study the hostility even minor delays are greeted with and think very carefully about what that says about people’s tolerance for no deal.

However, I also think that a “planned” no deal, in which both the European Union and the United Kingdom realise no accord will be reached and basic arrangements are struck to prevent the worst aspects of no deal, will cause electoral damage the government cannot walk off, because the immediate result of a no-deal exit will still be a large degree of chaos. As the government does not have the infrastructure or the know-how to leave the EU on 29 March 2019, there will still be shortages of some goods, and crucially prices will be significantly higher.

The head of the British Sandwich Association was ridiculed by the unserious wing of the Brexit elite when he said that his industry would be unable to make a “British-only” sandwich, but his central point is a vitally important one. What makes say, a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich not only available all the year round, but at a low price is that at any point the bacon, lettuce, tomato and indeed the raw ingredients for the actual bread can be sourced, tariff-free and friction-free from throughout the European Union. In the event of a planned no-deal Brexit, the cost of sandwiches will rise and the variety will reduce.

Now, I think it is unlikely in the extreme that people will draw a direct link between their work lunch going up in price and Brexit, not least because neither the government nor the Labour leadership has an interest in saying this has happened. Instead, people will just feel poorer, angrier, and significantly less inclined to re-elect the government.

When I speak to MPs and look at the basic arithmetic this feels and seems like the most likely scenario. But I don’t buy it. My underlying assumption – which of course may be heavily influenced by the fact I don’t want to live through a financial crisis and shortages of essential items – is that when push comes to shove, the Conservative leadership won’t allow a situation in which their hopes at the next election are extinguished long before the contest starts.

But how can they get out of it?

• An early election

Theresa May desperately needs to shift the balance of forces in parliament somehow. Why not have another election? In practice, although the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is meant to limit the number of elections, if the government wants one, it can get one anytime it likes because the opposition parties can never decline an opportunity to replace the government.

But if the government doesn’t want one they can very easily get out of it by saying what a great job they are doing and that now is no time to change direction. (Of course, given the circumstances this message sounds especially silly but it will get junior ministers through a tricky television interview, which is really all that matters.)

I cannot envisage a situation in which either the Conservative Party’s leadership or its MPs will want an early election. Firstly, look at how badly the last one turned out. Secondly, if there is another election, it will be the third time in three years that the Conservative Party has gone to the country asking it to bail them out of their own internal strife. People don’t like elections on the whole and tend to punish parties for making them vote unnecessarily.

There is also the very real risk that all another election does is waste more time and produce a parliament that looks essentially identical to this one, or is even more divided.

It just feels like too big of a risk for the Conservative Party to go to the country early, so I don’t think that will happen.

• A vote on the terms of the deal

The author Robert Harris put the case for another referendum – this one on whether to accept or reject the deal done by Theresa May or whoever is Conservative prime minister then – very well recently: “There will be a second referendum, not for any noble reason, but because MPs will desperately want to hand the screaming, defecating, vomiting baby back to its parents — the electorate — and let them decide what to do with it.”

One of the many governance problems thrown up by holding a referendum in which the sitting government does not support the change proposition is you are likely to end up with a result like the 2016 one, in which people voted for close to 17 million different versions of Brexit and whatever happens next triggers political disillusionment and creates big problems for any party’s prospects of winning a parliamentary majority.

The best solution from a Conservative Party perspective is to bind both the voters and the other political parties into Brexit through a second referendum.

But there are multiple reasons why this won’t happen: the first, of course, is that there simply isn’t enough parliamentary time between now and the end of the Article 50 process to pass a referendum bill through parliament. And of course, the main reason why the government might want a second vote – parliament can’t agree on the terms of exit – has big implications for whether or not you could pass a referendum bill. From the terms of the question to the way the campaigns are regulated, there is no way that a parliament that cannot agree on the shape of the Brexit deal could agree on the shape of another referendum question.

So it doesn’t seem as if the government can get out of the mess by this route.

• Brexit ultras fold and vote for the deal

Could the various Conservative MPs who are currently fulminating about Theresa May’s Brexit proposals fall into line and vote for them? Of course, May’s Brexit proposals as written have no chance of ever coming into being. But some version of Chequers with yet more concessions could end up being agreed too – let’s call it the I Can’t Believe It’s Not The EEA Brexit.

This certainly feels a lot more likely than either of the previous two scenarios. Rebellions always tend to be smaller in the House of Commons than they are in the press as it is an awfully big adventure to actually vote against your government, particularly on a vote like this that could very easily bring it down, force an election and put the opposition in power.

But ultimately May only needs to lose seven Conservatives over the side for her deal to be in jeopardy and I find it hard to see how she will not lose seven. And I doubt that she will be able to rely on Labour’s Brexiteers to bail her out, either: if May’s deal doesn’t convince Jacob Rees-Mogg, it is not going to convince Kate Hoey, Frank Field, Graham Stringer, Ronnie Campbell, Dennis Skinner or any of the other Labour Leavers, either.

• Labour MPs break the whip to vote for May’s deal

There are by my count more than 100 Labour MPs who have, at one time or another, rebelled on a Brexit vote – the majority to soften or stop it altogether, but a significant minority to harden or preserve Brexit. Could some of these MPs rebel on the meaningful vote to deliver Theresa May’s Brexit?

It’s difficult to say. When you ask any of these 100 or so Labour MPs, they of course say no. But it is tricky to tell what, faced with the possibility that we will crash out without a deal, the 80 or so Labour rebels who have voted to soften Brexit will do. Would they really all vote to impoverish their constituents to trigger an election? Perhaps not. But it is an awfully big adventure to rebel against your own party on a vote that might help kick the Tories out of office and I cannot see how May will deliver a Brexit deal soft enough to get Labour’s most committed Europeans to back it without tearing the Conservative Party in two: she has no appetite to do this, so I can’t see how it will happen.

What about the 20-odd Labour MPs who have voted in order to harden Brexit? Well, they come in two groups: committed longstanding Brexiteers and MPs who have, for one reason or another, felt that the party’s official stance does not sufficiently respect the referendum result to avoid endangering their seats.

As I’ve already said, you can rule out any of the committed Brexiteers rescuing May’s deal: a deal that is not sufficiently Brexit-y for Jacob Rees-Mogg is not going to be Brexit-y enough for Kate Hoey. But there’s an important corollary to that, too: any Brexit deal that is not sufficiently Brexit-y for high-profile Leave politicians is one that any nervous Labour MP in a pro-Leave seat will feel safe in voting with their party to vote down.

So I don’t see how any of the Labour European rebels, whether Remain or Leave, will be coming to the government’s rescue.

So what’s left?

• Transition will continue until morale improves

Ultimately the only way that the government can avoid a massive row over the final relationship with the European Union in this parliament, which cannot agree on the final relationship, is to simply avoid discussing the final relationship in any detail this side of the 2022 election by having a cursory bit of language in the Withdrawal Agreement of the “there will be a trade deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union” variety and for transition to roll over until such a time as one of the major political parties wins a big enough parliamentary majority to overcome its own internal divisions or the conditions of coalition partners to decisively resolve the matter of the UK-EU relationship.

Otherwise known as “sometime never”.'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/08/can-government-avoid-crashing-out-european-union-without-deal

[blandy]

On 31/07/2018 at 16:11, VILLAMARV said:

a nice link from the possibly interesting maps thread had a great animated graphic on 2000-2016 of the Global Refugee Crisis. I assume the official classification of refugee used in this data set as a source would stand up to scrutiny although I haven't dug very deeply on that myself but the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is quoted. You can clearly see the trend towards Europe and the times the US and Russia have taken people in deals (Like the recent one with Turkey etc). I appreciate it does not include the last 2 years. But then in the context of the Brexit vote that's no big deal.

https://earthtime.org/stories/global_refugee_crisis_the_big_picture

...And in the context of the point I was making with Vive it is important to distinguish between EU and Non EU immigration yes, but the whole point is lets not focus on some small aspect of the wider debate and miss the wood for the trees.

That animated flow map underscores my point completely. “Clearly there are a lot of refugees from Syria's war - though mostly not coming towards the UK (or even the EU).“ The majority of refugees flee to the next door safe country. Turkey is getting a fair chunk now from Syria. Turkey is not in the EU, but still the refugees are not coming to the U.K. in any number at all is my point. Leave and the UKIPs used alarmism about it, but it was just that. Alarmism.

[ml1dch]

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

So what’s left?

• Transition will continue until morale improves

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.

[Seat68]

https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1024402336591040512

This is a link to a tweet that has a stewart lee quote in it with a bad word, it also has video with more of the bad words, its not entirely suitable for an open office environment.

[bickster]

20 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

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.

 

I don't see that they can do that, it would possibly fuel a further break up of the EU. Hanging Greece out to dry is one thing because that was pretty much their own fault, Buggering up Ireland through no fault of their own would send the wrong message to both Ireland and all the other countries with large anti-EU sentiment brewing, like France, Germany and Italy. If it actually gets to that stage the EU would be taking a monumental gamble that in all likelihood won't pay off

[Xann]

 

[VILLAMARV]

10 hours ago, blandy said:

That animated flow map underscores my point completely. “Clearly there are a lot of refugees from Syria's war - though mostly not coming towards the UK (or even the EU).“ The majority of refugees flee to the next door safe country. Turkey is getting a fair chunk now from Syria. Turkey is not in the EU, but still the refugees are not coming to the U.K. in any number at all is my point. Leave and the UKIPs used alarmism about it, but it was just that. Alarmism.

Without wanting to dispute what you are saying I feel you are misinterpreting the context of what I was saying somewhat. My point, in the post you were quoting from, was in relation to Vive's outburst last weekend and the potential framing of the debate around immigration. I presume you saw the bit at the start of that post about the appalling fear tactics used by UKIP? That the majority of refugees cross the nearest border was not in question. The point you picked me up on claiming to be false - albeit (maybe) worded rather clumsily was suggesting that among the many things to consider (if Vive or anyone else wanted to stop banging on about Romanians for 5 minutes) one thing would be to recognise the effect War has on those immigration figures - which as you rightfully say could be further delved into to see the differences between refugees and economic migrants.  Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, I could have worded it along the lines of "in many of these instances there is British Military involvement". However in the instances that do effect the EU in relation to refugees I'm pretty sure the original statement stands tbh.

At no point did I suggest people were coming to the UK specifically? When did anyone suggest we shouldn't give political asylum to refugees? even UKIP? (Maybe they did I wouldn't know). I thought the point was for UKIP that the internal policies of the EU were their issue, not the humanitarian relief richer nations traditionally provide in times of conflict.

What the graphic clearly shows in the case of the EU is the obvious influx from 'the stans' and middle east after the start of the war in Afghanistan at the turn of the millennia and the start of the war on terror. Iraq came along and another surge along with a trickle from the many African conflicts. Around 2010 the EU's flow dries up to a trickle as Turkey start to take them in as Libya and Syria kick off and then Ukraine and then the flow into the EU starts up again from Syria, Northern Africa and the wider middle east.

In 2014 the UN recorded the highest amount of forcibly displaced people since WWII

Quote

Global forced displacement has seen accelerated growth in 2014, once again reaching unprecedented levels. The year saw the highest displacement on record. By end-2014, 59.5 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations. This is 8.3 million persons more than the year before (51.2 million) and the highest annual increase in a single year

http://www.unhcr.org/556725e69.html

And considering the relevance to the thread of the backdrop to the Brexit vote being the "European Migrant Crisis" with pictures of caravans of people crossing Eastern Europe en route to the EU and Corbyn rocking up in tent-city in Calais, I'm surprised you don't feel War all that relevant to the discussion. Perhaps the overall number of people in that caravan that ended up in the UK as refugees was very small. Immigration numbers were still rising at unprecedented levels. That Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey bore the brunt of it is a good point. That figures for 'migrants' can usually be split into separate groups like refugees and economic migrants like you said was indeed the point of the OP. If Vive or anyone else want to quote figures (and then not want to obvs ) then it's important I feel to consider the whole picture and try to understand what those figures actually represent.

In 2015 over a million people are alleged to have crossed the Mediterranean dropping to around 300,00 in 2016 and falling again last year

Quote

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the top three nationalities of entrants of the over one million Mediterranean Sea arrivals between January 2015 and March 2016 were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis

That would suggest that War is indeed a driving force between surges in population displacement and in the context of the Brexit vote highly relevant imo. And ones which have involved British weaponry.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by VILLAMARV
sp

[blandy]

54 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

At no point did I suggest people were coming to the UK specifically?

Just a brief quote to avoid massive threads.

I think we're maybe saying, or thinking similar things, but differently. My point was that the issue of mass immigration to the UK due to War is not and was not a relevant (true) factor to make people want to vote Brexit. It was used (falsely) to arouse fear by the UKIPs types, as you say that poster etc. but it was groundless fear mongering. Hence I was trying to say it wasn't a genuine reason for people to vote leave. So British involvement or claims of involvement in various conflicts does not equate or cause mass immigration to the UK as things stand. Whether that is morally justifiable or not is another debate.

The rest we're pretty closely aligned, I think, other than my reflex to say that while the UK has sold weapons to...wherever, it's far from the case that the UK is the facilitator or cause of the conflicts around the world, or the biggest supplier of arms. i.e. yes we hold some responsibility, but by no means all or a large part, IMO.

 

[TheAuthority]

15 hours ago, Xann said:

 

After watching that it brings home how the people on the ground that can actually see the catastrophe of this idiotic Brexit idea have been completely ignored. The politicians, some who are ideologues and others who just want to hold onto their constituency seats haven't got a flippin' clue. 

Maybe in the 19th century there was an argument for a ruling class educated at Eton to take care of fiscal and foreign policy because the majority of us proles were not educated and had to slave in pits and factories. But in the 21st century the majority of the non ruling class are entrepreneurs, own small businesses or make the educated choice to work hard and live good lives. Muppets like Reese-Mogg have no idea of the car crash they are careering the UK into, probably because they've never actually done a real days work in their lives. What a shit show fellas - seems like a revolution is the only answer.

[TheAuthority]

Blimey. March of next year will be here really quickly.

Well lads, I've got a couch and a blow up bed. I could probably convince Mrs. A to put a couple of you up for a few weeks

[bickster]

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

Blimey. March of next year will be here really quickly.

Well lads, I've got a couch and a blow up bed. I could probably convince Mrs. A to put a couple of you up for a few weeks

 

I'd rather stay and watch Theresa May, Gove, Johnson, Farage et al swinging from lampposts within a month

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'd rather stay and watch Theresa May, Gove, Johnson, Farage et al swinging from lampposts within a month

Absolute worst case for any of them? They resign blaming other people not doing what they had wanted which would have made everything fine. Then move to France / USA / Ireland / Germany and make the occasional appearance on Newsnight explaining how they would deal with the shit show if they were still here.

It's quite comforting to know that they all have several hundred thousand in the bank and a little place in France they can retire to.

There will be no opportunity to spit on a 50p piece and throw it down in front of a ragged Rees Mogg. 

[TheAuthority]

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'd rather stay and watch Theresa May, Gove, Johnson, Farage et al swinging from lampposts within a month

Sadly they'll all probably be at their 3rd homes in a tax haven somewhere getting rich with the other disaster capitalists.

Edited August 3, 2018 by TheAuthority