Brexit negotiations

[dan19900]

Interesting quote today from Tim Martin, the Brexiteer of Wetherspoon's fame:



He's not alone, either: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/immigration/news/95388/jacob-rees-mogg-slams-theresa-mays-‘idiotic’-100000

Here's the thing: this grand post-Brexit idea of unilaterally eliminating tariffs and mass deregulating also needs another key ingredient to work: a highly flexible and plentiful labour market. Trying to reduce immigration levels will make their model worse, not better.

"Controlling" immigration is one thing, but with UK unemployment at rock bottom even with current net migration levels, failing to increase immigration could hamper economic growth. In fact, that's probably happening already.

And one thing they certainly don't want is a shrinking labour market causing wages to increase. That's bad for business. Bear in mind that these same Brexiteers aren't a fan of minimum wage or the living wage either. They want free markets, and that includes a free labour market without the government sticking its pesky nose in.

Higher immigration, lower wage security and fewer rights. I wonder how many of the 52% voted for that as their post-Brexit future.

Brexit stops uncontrolled immigration, not all immigration. Really won't be hard for the UK to get immigrants to come to the UK if/when we need them.
I live in the Philippines, the government could rent a stand in a shopping center and they'd get 1000s of people per day applying, the wages in the UK are more per hour than half of the country earns in a day. They'd be begging to do it for 4 pound per hour, let alone 8 per hour.

 

[Mr D]

Brexit stops uncontrolled immigration, not all immigration. Really won't be hard for the UK to get immigrants to come to the UK if/when we need them.
I live in the Philippines, the government could rent a stand in a shopping center and they'd get 1000s of people per day applying, the wages in the UK are more per hour than half of the country earns in a day. They'd be begging to do it for 4 pound per hour, let alone 8 per hour.

We didn't have uncontrolled immigration before Brexit. We had control of the non EU immigration and those figures were high.

The one thing we don't have control of are asylum seekers and that's nothing to do with the EU.

As for people begging to do work for 4 pounds per hour - if they can survive on that why do people in the UK claim that minimum wage is too low?
Heck, the archbishop of Canterbury has recently been attacking amazon for not paying a living wage.
We won't ask how many people work for the body he represents who also don't get paid a living wage....
But if anyone can recruit from the Philippines for much cheaper.... problem solved.

 

[dan19900]

We didn't have uncontrolled immigration before Brexit. We had control of the non EU immigration and those figures were high.

The one thing we don't have control of are asylum seekers and that's nothing to do with the EU.

As for people begging to do work for 4 pounds per hour - if they can survive on that why do people in the UK claim that minimum wage is too low?
Heck, the archbishop of Canterbury has recently been attacking amazon for not paying a living wage.
We won't ask how many people work for the body he represents who also don't get paid a living wage....
But if anyone can recruit from the Philippines for much cheaper.... problem solved.

We had uncontrolled immigration from the EU was my point.

I wasn't suggesting we actually pay them 4 pounds per hour, just saying it would be very easy to get immigrants when we pay 8 per hour.

 

[Mr D]

We had uncontrolled immigration from the EU was my point.

I wasn't suggesting we actually pay them 4 pounds per hour, just saying it would be very easy to get immigrants when we pay 8 per hour.

And the immigration in the EU worked both ways.

If work dries up in the UK I could have nipped over to Germany, France, Denmark etc to get work.
Quite likely be harder later next year.

 

[dan19900]

And the immigration in the EU worked both ways.

If work dries up in the UK I could have nipped over to Germany, France, Denmark etc to get work.
Quite likely be harder later next year.

Shame you didn't consider Bulgaria, Romania or Poland and thinks might of worked out.

 

[Mr D]

Shame you didn't consider Bulgaria, Romania or Poland and thinks might of worked out.

No reason to nip over there, not so many opportunities for me (too much local competition) and don't speak the local lingos.

 

[Newchodge]

Brexit stops uncontrolled immigration, not all immigration. Really won't be hard for the UK to get immigrants to come to the UK if/when we need them.
I live in the Philippines, the government could rent a stand in a shopping center and they'd get 1000s of people per day applying, the wages in the UK are more per hour than half of the country earns in a day. They'd be begging to do it for 4 pound per hour, let alone 8 per hour.

Brexit stops uncontrolled immigration of EU residents. We have always had control of immigration from outside the EU. It's just that we have never managed to stop it. Why should post-Brexit be any different.

 

[The Byre]

If work dries up in the UK I could have nipped over to Germany, France, Denmark etc to get work.

I did.

My kids and grandchildren still can.

If the dreams of those pushing for a 'hard' Brexit come true, their own children will only be able to work in the UK. Their own children and grandchildren will be denied the right to vote with their feet.

A hard Brexit means your driving license will not be valid outside of the UK. Mine is - yours isn't!

The only people the blue-rinse Nazi brigade are attacking and harming are themselves and their own children.

 

[Newchodge]

The only people the blue-rinse Nazi brigade are attacking and harming are themselves and their own children.

Err no, you forget the rest of the UK population and their children.

 

[Mr D]

I did.

My kids and grandchildren still can.

If the dreams of those pushing for a 'hard' Brexit come true, their own children will only be able to work in the UK. Their own children and grandchildren will be denied the right to vote with their feet.

A hard Brexit means your driving license will not be valid outside of the UK. Mine is - yours isn't!

The only people the blue-rinse Nazi brigade are attacking and harming are themselves and their own children.

I'm still undecided so far about emigrating.
Ireland is a nice place. Flights to the rest of the EU easy enough.

Or Jersey. It too is outside the EU but doesn't have the same problems we appear to want.

 

[KM-Tiger]

A hard Brexit means your driving license will not be valid outside of the UK.

Really? I've used mine many times in the USA.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Brexit stops uncontrolled immigration, not all immigration. Really won't be hard for the UK to get immigrants to come to the UK if/when we need them.
I live in the Philippines, the government could rent a stand in a shopping center and they'd get 1000s of people per day applying, the wages in the UK are more per hour than half of the country earns in a day. They'd be begging to do it for 4 pound per hour, let alone 8 per hour.

Do you really think everyone based their vote on just making immigration more "controlled"?

Some say that's what they voted for, and I'm sure many did, but in reality a very large number of people voted on the assumption that immigration levels will come down considerably. There are numerous instances in this thread (and pretty much everywhere, for that matter) where people refer to current immigration levels as being "unsustainable".

The uncomfortable truth when we leave the EU is that if immigration levels go up, particularly consisting of people who are not culturally similar to us, there's going to be an awful lot of very unhappy people.

In the next few years I think those on the leave side will descend into a lot of infighting, even more so than now. Many of these big promises during the referendum campaign are the antithesis of what the "no deal is best" Brexiteers are trying to push as their post-Brexit model.

Many people, for example, want immigration to come down so lower paid overseas workers aren't "taking jobs" and driving down wages because they're prepared to work for less. Rees-Mogg & co are firm believers of free market principles with a plentiful labour market and no minimum wage. See the issue?

 

[KM-Tiger]

Do you really think everyone based their vote on just making immigration more "controlled"?

I thought that post referendum surveys had shown that immigration was not the major issue for most leave voters? Personally I saw it as a side issue.

But our policy is in need of reform. We currently have the absurdity of, for example, a doctor offered a job in the NHS being refused a visa while an unskilled EU worker can walk right in. I think a lot of people would like to see an end to that.

If we cannot reduce numbers, I think there would be more tolerance towards that if the system was seen to be both based on merit and fair to all countries in the world.

 

[Mr D]

I thought that post referendum surveys had shown that immigration was not the major issue for most leave voters? Personally I saw it as a side issue.

But our policy is in need of reform. We currently have the absurdity of, for example, a doctor offered a job in the NHS being refused a visa while an unskilled EU worker can walk right in. I think a lot of people would like to see an end to that.

If we cannot reduce numbers, I think there would be more tolerance towards that if the system was seen to be both based on merit and fair to all countries in the world.

Fair to all countries in the world?

That opens up a can of worms. Fair to a country and fair to an individual are very different things. Besides fair to the country they come from and fair to the country they go to also can be different.

How about being fair to all other countries by refusing to allow their skilled people to come and work in the UK?
Fair to the country they live in? Fair to the UK? Fair to the individual? Or fair to all 3?

 

[Cobby]

Really? I've used mine many times in the USA.

It's currently an EU driving licence and the EU has a mutual arrangement with the US allowing its use (depending on the state IDP may apparently also be required).

After Brexit UK licences will only be valid in UK without accompanying IDP's for each destination.

 

[Cobby]

But our policy is in need of reform. We currently have the absurdity of, for example, a doctor offered a job in the NHS being refused a visa while an unskilled EU worker can walk right in. I think a lot of people would like to see an end to that.

Also a skilled EU Doctor can "walk right in"* and not be refused a permit by a racist and xenophobic government.



*- nobody can "walk right in".

 

[KM-Tiger]

*- nobody can "walk right in".

Haha, I used it as an idiomatic phrase, you know like 'whiter than white'.

 

[The Byre]

It's currently an EU driving licence and the EU has a mutual arrangement with the US allowing its use (depending on the state IDP may apparently also be required).

In the event of a hard (i.e. no deal) Brexit, a UK driving license will (without an IDP) cease to be valid in the US. IDPs are NOT required in any US state for EU licences BUT a certified translation into English is required in some US states, for those driving licences that are either old-fashioned paper licences or otherwise do not comply with the general EU license format.

My German license will allow me to drive in most of Africa, Eastern Europe, Australia, the US, China, India and S.America, albeit with a translation. As IDPs only cost 15 Euros, it is a good idea to have one anyway.

Your insurance status after a hard Brexit is anyone's guess! We'll see!

Please note - to drive into most German cities, you must have a sticker certifying that your car is cat. Euro-5 or 6 (Diesel).

 

[Cobby]

In the event of a hard (i.e. no deal) Brexit, a UK driving license will (without an IDP) cease to be valid in the US. IDPs are NOT required in any US state for EU licences BUT a certified translation into English is required in some US states, for those driving licences that are either old-fashioned paper licences or otherwise do not comply with the general EU license format.

My German license will allow me to drive in most of Africa, Eastern Europe, Australia, the US, China, India and S.America, albeit with a translation. As IDPs only cost 15 Euros, it is a good idea to have one anyway.

Your insurance status after a hard Brexit is anyone's guess! We'll see!

Please note - to drive into most German cities, you must have a sticker certifying that your car is cat. Euro-5 or 6.

I defer to the learned gentle-byre

 

[The Byre]

The REAL problem with Brexit, is not any of the things we are discussing here, but all the things that nobody has thought of. There are going to be all kinds of idiotic little things, legal and commercial, that could trip-up the unwary. Driving licenses is an issue that is in a way typical (but easily dealt with). Insurance certificates, health coverage and all the things that we have allowed to fall into the remit of the EU and the commission.

We'll only discover what they are in the event of a hard Brexit.

Some of the more difficult issues are going to be about the millions of people like me who live and work in the UK and in the rest-EU. We have houses, incomes, NI numbers and all the other paraphernalia of life in the UK and in the rest-EU.

The UK has become both bureaucratically, legally and socially so deeply integrated into the EU that I still doubt that a 'real-Brexit' is possible.

 

[Cobby]

The REAL problem with Brexit, is not any of the things we are discussing here, but all the things that nobody has thought of. There are going to be all kinds of idiotic little things, legal and commercial, that could trip-up the unwary. Driving licenses is an issue that is in a way typical (but easily dealt with). Insurance certificates, health coverage and all the things that we have allowed to fall into the remit of the EU and the commission.

We'll only discover what they are in the event of a hard Brexit.

Some of the more difficult issues are going to be about the millions of people like me who live and work in the UK and in the rest-EU. We have houses, incomes, NI numbers and all the other paraphernalia of life in the UK and in the rest-EU.

The UK has become both bureaucratically, legally and socially so deeply integrated into the EU that I still doubt that a 'real-Brexit' is possible.

You can follow logic and reason down dozens of paths to spot little problems, and it's going to death by a thousand paper cuts because where the fervent Leavers won't simply rebut the problem with "it's not a big deal" they'll fall back on the quite ironic faith-in-the-system argument of, "that obviously won't happen because it just wouldn't". A lot of examples of "just wouldn't" are going to quickly become "well they did" after Brexit.

Additionally, these little paper cuts, the small things, they will first accumulate to punish the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Let's not forget Dominic Raab's fallback, after a campaign about Brexit's "sunny uplands", that there will simply be "adequate food". Which is patently absurd because there isn't adequate food right now; the Conservative government have penalised the poorest for a decade and pushed foodbank use to record highs.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I thought that post referendum surveys had shown that immigration was not the major issue for most leave voters? Personally I saw it as a side issue.

It was. It was one of the major EU-related issues for many years, even throughout the referendum, and even today. But then the leave side came with the angle of "taking back control" and "parliamentary sovereignty" and then everyone could leap over to that and use it as their main motive instead.

If you don't believe me, the polls say it all. This is a survey of the most important issues facing the UK in 2015:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...rs-Issues(2)-Most-important-issues-260515.pdf

Immigration was considered the biggest issue of all with around 50% of the vote - more than the economy, NHS or anything else.

See Europe on there? It was considered one of the least important issues, with around 15-20%.

I remember a few years back very clearly and the surveys back it up. Immigration was the hot topic, and very few people actually cared about the EU. The percentage that did care matches up quite well with UKIP's general election vote share in 2015 (12.6%).

If we cannot reduce numbers, I think there would be more tolerance towards that if the system was seen to be both based on merit and fair to all countries in the world.

I think we both know that isn't true, don't we?

I'll leave you with this:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw...WdW8v0N4OagQbt37rYBA&q=daily+mail+immigration

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45537784

Sadiq Khan has called for a second referendum. Arguably the biggest political heavyweight to do so on the current scene.

Regardless of Brexit views he has to be given some credit for this. He's stood up and said what a number of other politicians probably want to say but are afraid to.

It'll be interesting to see if Corbyn responds to this. When you factor in the Labour MPs, membership base and affiliated unions, the party as a whole now seems to be leaning towards a final say for the people. Corbyn has been clearly reluctant to make that Labour's official position, but the calls may become too loud to ignore.

Will it harm his domestic political results? Hard to say. At this point though I don't think he has a great deal to lose.

 

[Mr D]

I'd be highly amused if there was a 2nd referendum and it gave the same end result as the first one. Leave.
Would the people calling for referendums then claim best of out 5?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I'd be highly amused if there was a 2nd referendum and it gave the same end result as the first one. Leave.
Would the people calling for referendums then claim best of out 5?

It might happen. I don't think anyone is claiming that a second referendum would be a slam dunk for remain. I'm not sure which way it would go.

Right now, with the result over two years old, and with a much clearer picture of what Brexit will mean, it's easy to argue that the people should be given a final say just before we pull the trigger.

However, if they are given a final say, and leave wins again, it would be a clear mandate at the time we must formalise the decision. It will be a majority vote based on the known post-Brexit path with all the ramifications that entails. It will be a vote that's not just more informed on EU membership, but also what we'll do if we no longer wish to be part of it.

Personally, I think it would unite the country far more than it currently is. Brexit is a much more difficult pill to swallow when we don't know whether it's what the people want (now, not two years ago), and when we don't know whether they want the deal, no deal, or something completely different.

 

[Mr D]

It might happen. I don't think anyone is claiming that a second referendum would be a slam dunk for remain. I'm not sure which way it would go.

Right now, with the result over two years old, and with a much clearer picture of what Brexit will mean, it's easy to argue that the people should be given a final say just before we pull the trigger.

However, if they are given a final say, and leave wins again, it would be a clear mandate at the time we must formalise the decision. It will be a majority vote based on the known post-Brexit path with all the ramifications that entails. It will be a vote that's not just more informed on EU membership, but also what we'll do if we no longer wish to be part of it.

Personally, I think it would unite the country far more than it currently is. Brexit is a much more difficult pill to swallow when we don't know whether it's what the people want (now, not two years ago), and when we don't know whether they want the deal, no deal, or something completely different.

Yes, have seen figures about how so many people would change their votes from this to that.
Tends to ignore the millions who could vote last time but did not - enough of them are a result changer in themselves.

Trouble now is when? May, June, July? Later next year?
And under current agreement (ie the letter to leave the EU) we leave in March.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Yes, have seen figures about how so many people would change their votes from this to that.
Tends to ignore the millions who could vote last time but did not - enough of them are a result changer in themselves.

Trouble now is when? May, June, July? Later next year?
And under current agreement (ie the letter to leave the EU) we leave in March.

We have to be pragmatic with something like this as there are no hard and fast rules. Obviously if we held it in February then people could argue that some changed their mind in March prior to leaving, but that would end up being a bit ridiculous.

I think once we have the final deal agreed in principle, so everyone knows what that is, then a final say any time after that would be clear-cut. Many people know a lot more about Brexit and the post-Brexit path than they did two years ago, but we're approaching a ceiling now where there are highly unlikely to be any new revelations or leaps forward in understanding.

Some leavers will switch to remain. Some remainers will switch to leave. Some who voted last time will not. Some who didn't vote previously will do so this time. What would the result be? I have no idea, hence why I'd like to know.

It's undeniable though that without a final say, and with so much having occurred since over two years ago, we're currently flying blind on what the people actually want.

 

[Mr D]

We have to be pragmatic with something like this as there are no hard and fast rules. Obviously if we held it in February then people could argue that some changed their mind in March prior to leaving, but that would end up being a bit ridiculous.

I think once we have the final deal agreed in principle, so everyone knows what that is, then a final say any time after that would be clear-cut. Many people know a lot more about Brexit and the post-Brexit path than they did two years ago, but we're approaching a ceiling now where there are highly unlikely to be any new revelations or leaps forward in understanding.

Some leavers will switch to remain. Some remainers will switch to leave. Some who voted last time will not. Some who didn't vote previously will do so this time. What would the result be? I have no idea, hence why I'd like to know.

It's undeniable though that without a final say, and with so much having occurred since over two years ago, we're currently flying blind on what the people actually want.

Forget February. There's pretty much no way that parliament can deal with legislation until probably November or early December. Miss that and you are looking January.
Then campaigning and organising.

Before end of March I'd say is simply too little time.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Forget February. There's pretty much no way that parliament can deal with legislation until probably November or early December. Miss that and you are looking January.
Then campaigning and organising.

Before end of March I'd say is simply too little time.

I do think December or January is more reasonable.

If it did happen (which I don't think it will) I'd honestly prefer no official campaigning at all. It's awash with psychological tricks purely designed to manipulate people. Campaign spending also becomes a factor, with the side having the most money ultimately having an upper hand. Much of that comes down to the wealth of certain supporters.

We had campaigning and then well over two years to learn, debate and digest. All the cards are now on the table as well (or will be soon, at least). It's more than enough to get a highly informed and honest decision from the public without people on either side shouting slogans at each other.

 

[Mr D]

I do think December or January is more reasonable.

If it did happen (which I don't think it will) I'd honestly prefer no official campaigning at all. It's awash with psychological tricks purely designed to manipulate people. Campaign spending also becomes a factor, with the side having the most money ultimately having an upper hand. Much of that comes down to the wealth of certain supporters.

We had campaigning and then well over two years to learn, debate and digest. All the cards are now on the table as well (or will be soon, at least). It's more than enough to get a highly informed and honest decision from the public without people on either side shouting slogans at each other.

I don't think parliament can pass legislation in time for January.

September is out as is early October. There will be other things for parliament to do too.
So say legislation is put together and voted on in November. Royal assent early December.
If the various groups keep bouncing it back and forth then expect next year before agreed. Then Royal Assent in January.

January is a bit soon I think for a referendum.

I'd prefer official campaigning. Leave it to the media and you end up with the best scare stories. Great if you want sell subscriptions to Cthulu magazine, not so great if you want to in any way educate people.
The media will cater for their own customers. Who will tell the truth? No media has an interest in that. Who will tell it as it should be, presenting the facts? Don't bet on the media.
I wouldn't bet on campaign groups either but add them together and you may get some idea.

I would bet at least some of us would study agreements (even if a thousand pages) and critically analyse the parts. And we would be a minority nationwide.

 

[The Byre]

Right now, with the result over two years old, and with a much clearer picture of what Brexit will mean, it's easy to argue that the people should be given a final say just before we pull the trigger.

I have to absolutely disagree! I personally have not the foggiest notion of what Brexit will entail.

We are beginning to get a glimpse of just SOME of the POSSIBLE consequences of the various species of Brexit, but the reality is, that many of the scare stories are patently absurd and the real dangers are (IMO) unknown. They are the thousands of things we have not thought of or realised.

So far, none of the various proposals are in any way, shape or form politically, socially or economically viable because -

- A total no-deal Brexit would crash the economy.

- The 'Chequers' proposal package is unacceptable to the EU Commission and to half the Tory party. It annoys everybody!

- The 'Norway' option is unacceptable to Brexiteers, as it means staying in, in all but name.

- We can't have a multiple choice referendum, so any referendum would have to be accept some deal (as yet unknown) or stay in.

- We are light years away from any sign of a deal that would be in any way shape or form acceptable to Brexiteers, which means that we are light years away from a referendum.

- With no deal on the table, there can be no question that can be asked of the electorate, other than the stupid question of 'Crash out and take pot-luck' or 'Stay in'. That is not in my opinion a question that could sensibly be asked of the electorate, as even the most ardent Brexiteers want a trade deal of some sort with the EU - and a trade deal entails accepting the other three freedoms.

Add to all the above, the obvious fact that both the government and the opposition are hopelessly divided and hopelessly incompetent. Everybody is plotting against everybody else! In all the years I have been interested and involved in politics, I have never ever seen anything like it in any country on Planet Earth!

I must admit that we haven't had a truly competent government since the War, but incompetence has been growing alarmingly over the past couple of decades, to the point where incompetence on the present scale has probably not been seen since the days of Edward the Second.

This isn't a government and that isn't the opposition - it's a Brian Rick's farce!

 

[KM-Tiger]

Campaign spending also becomes a factor, with the side having the most money ultimately having an upper hand.

That does not include the £9M on the government leaflet.

I don't know why the difference in the figures.

 

[Newchodge]

I always thought from the day of the result that we should have a referendum on the final deal. However as we are nowhere near having a final deal on which to vote, there seems little point as there is not enough time before 29 March to hold a referendum whose sole purpose, I believe is to draw the blame for this mess away from the politicians and be able to claim 'we gave the people what they wanted'.

What we need is the elected politicians to do their jobs and either produce a proposal that parliament can accept or reject or come clean with the British people and explain that it is absolutely impossible to negotiate a deal that improves our current position so that parliament can have a straight vote on maintaining the current position or leaving the EU with whatever we can get, including no deal.

That is what we elected our MP's to do. It is time they did their jobs in the interests of their constituents, not their own selfish interests or those of anyone else.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

That does not include the £9M on the government leaflet.

I don't know why the difference in the figures.

I didn't insinuate that leave had the upper hand. I don't like either side having more financial resources than the other, regardless of which side I support. The same goes for general elections. They should be an even playing field with focus on the facts.

Plus, by extension, other factors come into play as well which are irrelevant to the question itself, such as the level of marketing expertise within each campaign and how well the money is spent.

 

[Steven001]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45537784

Sadiq Khan has called for a second referendum. Arguably the biggest political heavyweight to do so on the current scene.

Regardless of Brexit views he has to be given some credit for this. He's stood up and said what a number of other politicians probably want to say but are afraid to.

It'll be interesting to see if Corbyn responds to this. When you factor in the Labour MPs, membership base and affiliated unions, the party as a whole now seems to be leaning towards a final say for the people. Corbyn has been clearly reluctant to make that Labour's official position, but the calls may become too loud to ignore.

Will it harm his domestic political results? Hard to say. At this point though I don't think he has a great deal to lose.

Khan is relevant only with the hardcore far-left, pot smoking, drum-banging, re-maniac Londoners. Anything other than that and he's completely irrelevant and for the most part hated due to his inaction on the out-of-control crime epidemic in London which has seen the city overtake New York in its murder rate.

 

[Cobby]

That is not in my opinion a question that could sensibly be asked of the electorate, as even the most ardent Brexiteers want a trade deal of some sort with the EU

Lots of them are quite active in politically campaigning for Absolutely No Deal at all Because We Don't Need It.

That does not include the £9M on the government leaflet.

I don't know why the difference in the figures.

If you are talking about the government's pre-referendum due diligence whereby they act (arguably for the last time) in the interests of the nation, and you want to count that £9million leaflet drop, then you can also group in, what, £100million?, for the support of the right-wing extremists and their hate rags.

Alternatively we can treat them as events which are not directly affiliated with the referendum.

 

[Mr D]

Khan is relevant only with the hardcore far-left, pot smoking, drum-banging, re-maniac Londoners. Anything other than that and he's completely irrelevant and for the most part hated due to his inaction on the out-of-control crime epidemic in London which has seen the city overtake New York in its murder rate.

Yes that's how he got elected Mayor.
Over a million votes.

Any particular individuals in the UK who have been elected to their position by more votes who has spoken out on this subject?

 

[KM-Tiger]

Yes that's how he got elected Mayor.
Over a million votes.

Noteworthy that more Londoners voted leave than voted for Khan.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Khan is relevant only with the hardcore far-left, pot smoking, drum-banging, re-maniac Londoners. Anything other than that and he's completely irrelevant and for the most part hated due to his inaction on the out-of-control crime epidemic in London which has seen the city overtake New York in its murder rate.

That aside, he's one of the very few Labour MPs in such a powerful position considering he's the mayor of our capital city which is one of the largest financial centres on earth. He holds some influence, particularly in the Labour party where there's a bit of in-fighting going on over the moment on Labour's Brexit position.

His backing of a second referendum is, for example, a lot more noteworthy than if a backbench Labour MP were to back it.

Regarding your other point, London overtook New York only briefly, and in terms of murders per 100,000 of the population, New York has always been miles ahead (London's rate is around half that of New York's).

The annual murder rate in London is also considerably lower than it was a decade ago. In terms of overall crime, London doesn't even have the highest city crime rate in the UK. Oxford and Cambridge, perhaps surprisingly, are higher in the crime rate rankings.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45541852

There are some MPs and political parties taking a very dangerous gamble when it comes to the final parliamentary Brexit vote.

In refusing to back May's proposal, they're forcing this into a choice between staying in the EU or crashing out without a deal. There's a huge reliance here on the government finding no deal too damaging to go through with.

When all is said and done it could be remainers, just as much as ardent leavers, causing the UK to leave without a deal, albeit with extremely different intentions.