No Deal Brexit? bring it on!

[Toodles McGinty]

Or, if they repeated the vote in the same manner and if by some chance there was some electoral anomaly and Remain won? What then? They cannot act on this because it would not be democratic if the first vote was not acted upon - but the second was. So there would have to be a third deciding vote, and by now we are nine years down the line!

So it can't happen!

A few points. When someone wins an election, the opposition doesn't give up and go home until the next election is due. It continues to represent the interests of those opposed to the 'winner'. Minority representation is very much part of democracy, and when there is only a 3.8% difference, that is doubly important. There was little difference between leave and remain. There is likely a similar majority for remain by now.

I know certain posters on here constantly use the word 'remoaner', dancing with glee like a 4 year old that's just discovered the word 'fart' as they write it, but the remain group are in effect the opposition. Would you expect the government opposition to simply stop?

How is it democratic to overturn the original referendum, which took us into the EU (EEC) in the 70s? The argument there is that our situation has changed since the 70s. But the situation has changed in the 3 years since this referendum. Before the result, your leader Farage thought a close referendum would lead to a second vote. After 'winning' he instantly admitted that his campaign used lies to sway the public. As time has passed it has become increasingly obvious that 'Brexit' will not be the effortless, pain free exercise that was promised.

There are 3 other considerations: the Settled Will of the people, demographic changes and - following my previous paragraph - informed consent. A change to our constitution, in this case our Acts and Laws, should go beyond a simple uninformed vote. To consider the settled will of the people, the people should have complete clarity. Demographic changes mean a good amount of elderly Leave voters are now dead. A huge amount of under-18s during the referendum would be eligible to vote. Given the majority of Leave voters were on their last legs, that could change that slim majority to a sizeable minority. In total, there was no informed consent, so further consideration should take place.


We have 3 options. No deal. Deal. Revoke. The government, or Parliament, can't agree on any of these. Expert opinion states No Deal would be highly damaging. Parliament can and should step in. A slim majority voted leave. Did many of those vote for paying a personal economic price for Brexit?


Revoke is unlikely, but the magnitude of the act of leaving the EU could cause the government to pass it on to another generation. A deal seems to be the preference of the majority of leavers. You could bicker over that, but that only further breaks down that initial 'majority'. If Parliament cannot resolve this, then a second referendum would not be undemocratic. If our elected representatives can't settle it, then surely the Settled Will of the people should come into play.

[local]

The rather large problems with that ill considered diatribe is we haven't anything to reconsider or confirm, we have just had three years of MP's who lost not respecting the vote outcome.

They asked for the peoples opinion and promised to implement it,

but then when they had the opportunity to agree with your claim that the people were seriously misled they clearly didn't agree with you and they backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114.


Wanting to rerun votes because people have died ?

Your informed consent argument clearly dies with the European Vote Bill as even a Parliament stacked with yes remoaners doesn't agree with you.

The Judiciary also cast the red bus lie action in the legal dustbin.

Wanting a vote rerun because MP's have not done their job seems a miserable reason for tearing up peoples legitimately cast votes.


The measure of a person is not how they win its how they lose,
clearly there is still some intellectual maturity to be had for some.

[Toodles McGinty]

The rather large problems with that ill considered diatribe is we haven't anything to reconsider or confirm, we have just had three years of MP's who lost not respecting the vote outcome.

You might not have anything to reconsider, as you, I presume, have made the 'ill considered' decision that leaving the EU without any kind of deal will somehow enhance the life of the ordinary person. Despite the fact that the vast majority of experts state implicitly that the whole charade has cost us £66 billion, or a grand per man, woman and child in this country. So far.

And despite your fits of pique every time anyone has the temerity to question the results of the referendum ('remoaner'), while you witter on about democracy, it is our democratic right to question the same.

Considering the 'remoaners' are probably more than half of the electorate by now, it's hardly a tiny amount that are trying to put a stop to an entire overhaul of our laws, our commerce, our security and every other issue that goes along with it.

And again, if a second European referendum democratically overturns the sovereignty of the first, why shouldn't a third?

Of course, to avoid my 'ill considered diatribes', there's an 'ignore list' facility. Better than having those terrible 'remoaners' having an opinion.

[Mr B S Sniffer]

You might not have anything to reconsider, as you, I presume, have made the 'ill considered' decision that leaving the EU without any kind of deal will somehow enhance the life of the ordinary person. Despite the fact that the vast majority of experts state implicitly that the whole charade has cost us £66 billion, or a grand per man, woman and child in this country. So far.

And despite your fits of pique every time anyone has the temerity to question the results of the referendum ('remoaner'), while you witter on about democracy, it is our democratic right to question the same.

Considering the 'remoaners' are probably more than half of the electorate by now, it's hardly a tiny amount that are trying to put a stop to an entire overhaul of our laws, our commerce, our security and every other issue that goes along with it.

And again, if a second European referendum democratically overturns the sovereignty of the first, why shouldn't a third?

Of course, to avoid my 'ill considered diatribes', there's an 'ignore list' facility. Better than having those terrible 'remoaners' having an opinion.

Don't believe that for one minute.

With the help of the Tories the rich will have made a profit and saddled the average joe with their share 10 times over.

[local]

You might not have anything to reconsider, as you, I presume, have made the 'ill considered' decision that leaving the EU without any kind of deal will somehow enhance the life of the ordinary person. Despite the fact that the vast majority of experts state implicitly that the whole charade has cost us £66 billion, or a grand per man, woman and child in this country. So far.

And despite your fits of pique every time anyone has the temerity to question the results of the referendum ('remoaner'), while you witter on about democracy, it is our democratic right to question the same.

Considering the 'remoaners' are probably more than half of the electorate by now, it's hardly a tiny amount that are trying to put a stop to an entire overhaul of our laws, our commerce, our security and every other issue that goes along with it.

And again, if a second European referendum democratically overturns the sovereignty of the first, why shouldn't a third?

Of course, to avoid my 'ill considered diatribes', there's an 'ignore list' facility. Better than having those terrible 'remoaners' having an opinion.

Wrong yet again, a deal would be my much preferred option by far.

The success of the vacuous newly formed Brexit party punctures your assertion that remoaners are more than half the electorate by now.


The only true remain parties of significance are the Lib Dems and Greens whilst their vote improved it was not enough.

An honest remain supporter would vote for neither the Conservatives or Labour as they both promise to implement some form of Brexit. (This week)


I take the words of a Liberal Democrat (a real one) Norman Lamb ;


Mr Lamb posted: “We are democrats.

“For better or worse we all voted to hold the referendum. You can't now say we reject the result.”

“I am a democrat. We gave people a vote. We can't ignore what they decided.”

[said]

A few points. When someone wins an election, the opposition doesn't give up and go home until the next election is due. It continues to represent the interests of those opposed to the 'winner'. Minority representation is very much part of democracy, and when there is only a 3.8% difference, that is doubly important. There was little difference between leave and remain. There is likely a similar majority for remain by now.

I know certain posters on here constantly use the word 'remoaner', dancing with glee like a 4 year old that's just discovered the word 'fart' as they write it, but the remain group are in effect the opposition. Would you expect the government opposition to simply stop?

How is it democratic to overturn the original referendum, which took us into the EU (EEC) in the 70s? The argument there is that our situation has changed since the 70s. But the situation has changed in the 3 years since this referendum. Before the result, your leader Farage thought a close referendum would lead to a second vote. After 'winning' he instantly admitted that his campaign used lies to sway the public. As time has passed it has become increasingly obvious that 'Brexit' will not be the effortless, pain free exercise that was promised.

There are 3 other considerations: the Settled Will of the people, demographic changes and - following my previous paragraph - informed consent. A change to our constitution, in this case our Acts and Laws, should go beyond a simple uninformed vote. To consider the settled will of the people, the people should have complete clarity. Demographic changes mean a good amount of elderly Leave voters are now dead. A huge amount of under-18s during the referendum would be eligible to vote. Given the majority of Leave voters were on their last legs, that could change that slim majority to a sizeable minority. In total, there was no informed consent, so further consideration should take place.


We have 3 options. No deal. Deal. Revoke. The government, or Parliament, can't agree on any of these. Expert opinion states No Deal would be highly damaging. Parliament can and should step in. A slim majority voted leave. Did many of those vote for paying a personal economic price for Brexit?


Revoke is unlikely, but the magnitude of the act of leaving the EU could cause the government to pass it on to another generation. A deal seems to be the preference of the majority of leavers. You could bicker over that, but that only further breaks down that initial 'majority'. If Parliament cannot resolve this, then a second referendum would not be undemocratic. If our elected representatives can't settle it, then surely the Settled Will of the people should come into play.

In the UK - the number of people calling for leaving the EU was far greater than the published result. This was because there were a huge number of ex-pats allowed to vote who do not live in the UK and therefore were not aware of the conditions here. There were also a large number of people living in the UK colonies who were allowed to vote - in one of those at least, I know that their government only allowed the media to publicise remaining in the EU. So the number of people not living in the UK voted to remain and swelled the numbers unfairly. There is a far greater margin between those who voted to remain in the EU and those who wanted to Leave the EU living in the UK. The numbers have now increased for Leave after having seen how the EU has performed over the whole issue.

The country is all set to Leave with no deal! There is not time to create a deal and the EU is unwilling to listen to any further response from the UK. There are already international driving permits on sale - for those who may wish to drive in the EU after 31st October, when we leave under this arrangement. All companies who deal through the EU have been given written advice on how to proceed under the same application. For the near future, it has been set so that we trade with the EU under the free trade arrangement. The Irish borders will be as they are now. The UK is not about to sink into the ocean, we will survive and survive well - just you wait!

[libraryguy]

A “further” few points to consider… “When someone wins an election, the opposition doesn't give up and go home until the next election is due. It continues to represent the interests of those opposed to the 'winner'.”

No, it doesn’t give up. However, the opposition does actually accept the result and allows the result to stand and lets the “winner” form a government.

“Minority representation is very much part of democracy, and when there is only a 3.8% difference, that is doubly important.”

Yes it was only 3.8% but it was still a majority in favour of Leaving. If it had been 3.8% in favour of Remaining, you'd have taken that, wouldn't you?

“I know certain posters on here constantly use the word 'remoaner', dancing with glee like a 4 year old that's just discovered the word 'fart' as they write it, but the remain group are in effect the opposition. Would you expect the government opposition to simply stop?”

This was a referendum and by its nature, it wasn’t a matter of putting a group into power and having an opposition. We were asked a question – the electorate told parliament we wanted to Leave. We were also told that it would be a once in a generation vote and the will of the people would be enacted. We would leave the Customs Union, have control of our borders and our laws.

Also... how about the 4yo "Remainer" who gets upset, has a tantrum and takes his ball away because he lost the game? We can all make those analogies.

“How is it democratic to overturn the original referendum, which took us into the EU (EEC) in the 70s?”

Please do check your facts. The Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities took effect on 1 January 1973. This followed ratification of the Accession treaty which was signed in Brussels on 22 January 1972 by the Conservative prime-minister Edward Heath, who had pursued the UK's application to the EEC since the late 1950s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access...an_Communities

1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum - The electorate expressed significant support for EC membership, with 67% in favour on a national turnout of 64%. The referendum result was not legally binding; however, it was widely accepted that the vote would be politically binding on future Westminster Parliaments. However, in 1983 The Labour Party's Manifesto pledged withdrawal from the community. In a 1975 pamphlet Prime Minister Harold Wilson said: "I ask you to use your vote. For it is your vote that will now decide. The Government will accept your verdict." The pamphlet also said: "Now the time has come for you to decide. The Government will accept your decision — whichever way it goes."

I wonder where we’ve heard that before?

And it is very democratic to have another vote, because the result in 1975 was to remain. The result of the referendum was enacted and seen through to its end, although the government had to do nothing and we stayed in.

“The argument there is that our situation has changed since the 70s.”

It has been 41 years since 1975 at the time of the 2016 referendum. We have been taken further into the EU and have never been asked if we wanted this. We originally joined a group of 12 European countries in a trading bloc, not for it to become a United States of Europe.

“But the situation has changed in the 3 years since this referendum. Before the result, your leader Farage thought a close referendum would lead to a second vote. After 'winning' he instantly admitted that his campaign used lies to sway the public. As time has passed it has become increasingly obvious that 'Brexit' will not be the effortless, pain free exercise that was promised.”

And you’re trying to tell me that the Remain camp didn’t tell lies either? How about thousands of jobs being lost, an extra annual £4000 cost to every household, President Obama brought in to tell us we’ll “go to the back of the queue” in any trade negotiations. Yes, sterling dropped briefly but doesn’t that always happen in the markets when something “major” happens. The Bank of England took measures to counteract that and it is not much different to where it was before the result. All this on just the result of us voting to Leave, not actually leaving.

“There are 3 other considerations: the Settled Will of the people, demographic changes and - following my previous paragraph - informed consent. A change to our constitution, in this case our Acts and Laws, should go beyond a simple uninformed vote.”

Uninformed? We had the booklet sent to every household in the UK. As per the 1975 vote, we were told that “Whatever we decide it will be enacted”. Also, I personally do not remember being told the referendum was only advisory. 72% of the electorate went to the polls, equalling the highest ever turnout for a vote. If it was known it was only going to be advisory and the government would possibly ignore the decision what would have been the point of voting?

“To consider the settled will of the people, the people should have complete clarity. Demographic changes mean a good amount of elderly Leave voters are now dead. A huge amount of under-18s during the referendum would be eligible to vote. Given the majority of Leave voters were on their last legs, that could change that slim majority to a sizeable minority. In total, there was no informed consent, so further consideration should take place.”

So you now want another referendum because people have died and those that were under 18 couldn’t vote. This happens every single day. By your logic, we should be having daily, weekly, monthly or yearly general elections? The Remainers have sought to delay delay delay. Gina Miller took the government to court, which delayed the government from triggering Article 50 by 4 months. It was always known that in triggering Article 50 we would have two years to negotiate and find a deal. I expect you’d like the voting age to be lowered to 16 so you can try and sway the vote in your favour?

You just can’t accept the result can you, and you’re using every tired old irrelevant argument to try and overturn it.

“We have 3 options. No deal. Deal. Revoke. The government, or Parliament, can't agree on any of these. Expert opinion states No Deal would be highly damaging. Parliament can and should step in. A slim majority voted leave. Did many of those vote for paying a personal economic price for Brexit?"

Actually, there should only be two options. We’ve already voted to Leave, so it should be an informed vote of Deal or No Deal.

“Revoke is unlikely, but the magnitude of the act of leaving the EU could cause the government to pass it on to another generation. A deal seems to be the preference of the majority of leavers. You could bicker over that, but that only further breaks down that initial 'majority'. If Parliament cannot resolve this, then a second referendum would not be undemocratic. If our elected representatives can't settle it, then surely the Settled Will of the people should come into play.”

Parliament can’t agree because the Remainers in every political party won’t accept the result. You have a Remain against Leave deadlock in Parliament, and you have Parliament at odds with the people. It is those who will NOT accept the result that are causing delay after delay, obfuscation and trying to overturn a democratic result. One of the main stumbling blocks of the Withdrawal Agreement is the Northern Ireland backstop. The EU knows this is causing trouble and it was designed to prevent us from leaving. If the present deal is voted through, it will leave the UK a vassal state, having to abide by decisions taken by a parliament against our will. How is that democratic?

It is precisly because of these delaying tactics of the Remainer MPs and no majority for anything in parliament that brings the prospect of a default No Deal increasingly likely. It is the only option left to honour the result of the 2016 referendum unless the EU agree to renegotiate a withdrawal agreement.

If the democratic will of the electorate is ignored and overturned it will be the death of democracy in the UK, what would be the point of ever voting again? Every vote would be open to challenge.

Mark my words, if the Referendum result is overturned, you will see fury in this country like you’ve never seen before!

[Alikado]

Extract - Library Guy;-

Actually, there should only be two options. We’ve already voted to Leave, so it should be an informed vote of Deal or No Deal.

Parliament can’t agree because the Remainers in every political party won’t accept the result. You have a Remain against Leave deadlock in Parliament, and you have Parliament at odds with the people. It is those who will NOT accept the result that are causing delay after delay, obfuscation and trying to overturn a democratic result.

It is precisly because of these delaying tactics of the Remainer MPs and no majority for anything in parliament that brings the prospect of a default No Deal increasingly likely. It is the only option left to honour the result of the 2016 referendum unless the EU agree to renegotiate a withdrawal agreement.

If the democratic will of the electorate is ignored and overturned it will be the death of democracy in the UK, what would be the point of ever voting again? Every vote would be open to challenge.

Mark my words, if the Referendum result is overturned, you will see fury in this country like you’ve never seen before!


Actually there should only be 1 option, 2 options were available on the day of the vote, 1 was discarded.
The day of triggering Article 50 there was again 2 options Agree a Deal or Leave with No Deal, that has now passed as a deal was agreed.

Remainers are not the problem, the problem is the 'NO DEAL' mob who have seized control of Parliament forcing 'The Meaningful Vote' and are now thwarting the Leave process at every step. May was accused of running down the clock but it is the No Dealers who are the problem, refusing to accept the negotiated deal which will not be altered and the referendum result.

[libraryguy]

The negotiated deal

Extract - Library Guy;-

Actually, there should only be two options. We’ve already voted to Leave, so it should be an informed vote of Deal or No Deal.

Parliament can’t agree because the Remainers in every political party won’t accept the result. You have a Remain against Leave deadlock in Parliament, and you have Parliament at odds with the people. It is those who will NOT accept the result that are causing delay after delay, obfuscation and trying to overturn a democratic result.

It is precisly because of these delaying tactics of the Remainer MPs and no majority for anything in parliament that brings the prospect of a default No Deal increasingly likely. It is the only option left to honour the result of the 2016 referendum unless the EU agree to renegotiate a withdrawal agreement.

If the democratic will of the electorate is ignored and overturned it will be the death of democracy in the UK, what would be the point of ever voting again? Every vote would be open to challenge.

Mark my words, if the Referendum result is overturned, you will see fury in this country like you’ve never seen before!


Actually there should only be 1 option, 2 options were available on the day of the vote, 1 was discarded.
The day of triggering Article 50 there was again 2 options Agree a Deal or Leave with No Deal, that has now passed as a deal was agreed.

Remainers are not the problem, the problem is the 'NO DEAL' mob who have seized control of Parliament forcing 'The Meaningful Vote' and are now thwarting the Leave process at every step. May was accused of running down the clock but it is the No Dealers who are the problem, refusing to accept the negotiated deal which will not be altered and the referendum result.

The negotiated "deal" is no more than a further treaty. I has the potential to keep us tied to the EU indefinately without any say whatsoever. It's for this reason the ERG are refusing to accept the present negoitated deal. If there is another potential deal which is favourable to us and the EU they would support it wholeheartedly.

[Alikado]

The negotiated deal

The negotiated "deal" is no more than a further treaty. I has the potential to keep us tied to the EU indefinately without any say whatsoever. It's for this reason the ERG are refusing to accept the present negoitated deal. If there is another potential deal which is favourable to us and the EU they would support it wholeheartedly.

Any deal / Trade Treaty call it what you will will do that, there will never be a deal that will suit them, they have too many vested interests.
If we came out with 'No Deal' we would still have to conform to their Rules and Regulations to sell anything to them.

[said]

Extract - Library Guy;-

Actually, there should only be two options. We’ve already voted to Leave, so it should be an informed vote of Deal or No Deal.

Parliament can’t agree because the Remainers in every political party won’t accept the result. You have a Remain against Leave deadlock in Parliament, and you have Parliament at odds with the people. It is those who will NOT accept the result that are causing delay after delay, obfuscation and trying to overturn a democratic result.

It is precisly because of these delaying tactics of the Remainer MPs and no majority for anything in parliament that brings the prospect of a default No Deal increasingly likely. It is the only option left to honour the result of the 2016 referendum unless the EU agree to renegotiate a withdrawal agreement.

If the democratic will of the electorate is ignored and overturned it will be the death of democracy in the UK, what would be the point of ever voting again? Every vote would be open to challenge.

Mark my words, if the Referendum result is overturned, you will see fury in this country like you’ve never seen before!


Actually there should only be 1 option, 2 options were available on the day of the vote, 1 was discarded.
The day of triggering Article 50 there was again 2 options Agree a Deal or Leave with No Deal, that has now passed as a deal was agreed.

Remainers are not the problem, the problem is the 'NO DEAL' mob who have seized control of Parliament forcing 'The Meaningful Vote' and are now thwarting the Leave process at every step. May was accused of running down the clock but it is the No Dealers who are the problem, refusing to accept the negotiated deal which will not be altered and the referendum result.

The 'Deal' to which you are referring, was the withdrawal conditions that the EU wanted the UK to agree to. As with every offer issued to Westminster, it is necessary to have Parliament agree to it before it can go ahead. Parliament rejected it, quite rightly. The agreement was for the UK to agree to a customs union, which in turn would have meant the UK agreeing to the Rules and Regulations of the EU - technically meaning that we would still be in the EU. It also meant that the EU would retain the rights to our fishing areas. On both those counts alone meant that the submitted Withdrawal offer conflicted with the will of the electorate. If the UK leaves the EU with No Deal - the UK will be able to negotiate trading adjustments in the future for its own benefit.

In June 1970, just three days before the general election it was announced that the UK's trade balance was in deficit. This was under Harold Wilson's time in office and there was a big media outcry. The deficit at that time was around £30 million, much of which had been due to a couple of aircraft the UK had purchased. Since the 1980's the UK has been running a continuous deficit which today stands at about £140 billion. Trade deals with the EU have been very disappointing, with the trade deficit with the EU doubling between 2012 and 2016, while trade with the rest of the world has been in surplus for many years. The reason why our trade deficit is increasing with the EU is because of the single market may suit other countries, but not the UK because the free trade applies only to goods - and our greatest export is services which free trade does not apply to. As a consequence of a growing deficit that has to be financed, there will be higher interest rates in the UK, an over valued currency, lack of investment in new equipment and skill levels, industry workers will become unemployed due to a drop in productivity. So I cannot understand why so many Remain supporters demand that we will lose out if we do not have a single market and a customs union - it is devastating to the UK, as Leave supporters have repeatedly stated.

[Alikado]

The 'Deal' to which you are referring, was the withdrawal conditions that the EU wanted the UK to agree to. As with every offer issued to Westminster, it is necessary to have Parliament agree to it before it can go ahead.

The Deal is the Deal it will not alter, it was not necessary to have Parliamentary approval but the 'No Deal' Brexiteers seized control of the process and have been thwarting it ever since.

Parliament rejected it, quite rightly. The agreement was for the UK to agree to a customs union, which in turn would have meant the UK agreeing to the Rules and Regulations of the EU - technically meaning that we would still be in the EU.

Who ever you trade with you have to adhere to their Rules & Regs or else you don't trade.


It also meant that the EU would retain the rights to our fishing areas.

and us theirs.


On both those counts alone meant that the submitted Withdrawal offer conflicted with the will of the electorate. If the UK leaves the EU with No Deal - the UK will be able to negotiate trading adjustments in the future for its own benefit.




In June 1970, just three days before the general election it was announced that the UK's trade balance was in deficit. This was under Harold Wilson's time in office and there was a big media outcry. The deficit at that time was around £30 million, much of which had been due to a couple of aircraft the UK had purchased. Since the 1980's the UK has been running a continuous deficit which today stands at about £140 billion. Trade deals with the EU have been very disappointing, with the trade deficit with the EU doubling between 2012 and 2016, while trade with the rest of the world has been in surplus for many years. The reason why our trade deficit is increasing with the EU is because of the single market may suit other countries, but not the UK because the free trade applies only to goods - and our greatest export is services which free trade does not apply to.
Services within the EU are Tariff Free.

As a consequence of a growing deficit that has to be financed, there will be higher interest rates in the UK, an over valued currency, lack of investment in new equipment and skill levels, industry workers will become unemployed due to a drop in productivity. So I cannot understand why so many Remain supporters demand that we will lose out if we do not have a single market and a customs union - it is devastating to the UK, as Leave supporters have repeatedly stated.

It is not just Remain supporters that demand a Deal most Brexiteers want one as well., The EU is our biggest Export Market, this is all Tariff Free, Customs Union is a Red Herring all it really means is an agreement on paper work

[local]

The no deal brexiters clearly haven't taken control of anything whoever they are.



I do though long to fish in the waters of Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Vatican City.

[said]

It is not just Remain supporters that demand a Deal most Brexiteers want one as well., The EU is our biggest Export Market, this is all Tariff Free, Customs Union is a Red Herring all it really means is an agreement on paper work

and the balance of payments problem? - The EU is a lead weight around our necks!

[The PNP]

and the balance of payments problem? - The EU is a lead weight around our necks!

When (EU) barriers go up...(UK) trade goes down.


STOP BREXIT!