Re: Brexit
 

We can’t give instructions to Parliament - we are in a Representative Democracy, not Delegated one.

Re: Brexit
 

We did, however it’s not binding, and those that did can’t agree on next steps.

If 10 friends decide what to do as a group on Saturday night, 4 want to stay in, 3 want to go to the pub and 3 want to go to the bowling, you are kidding yourself on pretending staying in isn’t the most popular option.

Re: Brexit
 

Nigel Farage's interview with the Daily Telegraph. { Behind Paywall }

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...n-badly-needs/

Re: Brexit
 

Extremely poor analogy.

The Amendment motion that just got voted on and won is not binding either.

Re: Brexit
 

It is most certainly not nonsense. Legal advice is never given in full because it contains the full picture, including what the other side (in this case, the EU) can use against you.

Government has not ignored Parliament. Following the vote, it has agreed to release the full advice. However, this is almost unprecedented.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:15 ----------

It would be better if they actually had a plan which delivered the result of the referendum.

Re: Brexit
 

Rubbish. I stand by what I said. We gave an instruction to parliament when they passed the question to us on leaving the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

If Brexit is scrapped, I wonder if the EU will send us a bill for their 'wasted' time in negotiating over the past two years or so?

Re: Brexit
 

I know! What absolute treachery! The electorate will not forget this.

I'm beginning to think that only a General Election will resolve this. If the Conservatives made the delivery of Brexit their pledge if they are elected, I am confident they will get back with a pretty good majority, particularly if Labout start regressing back to a remain position.

But we should not have arrived in this position.

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

Nice to have confirmation of your democratic principles, Dave. :no:

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ----------

Like what?

Re: Brexit
 

But now Parliament has more say in what leaving looks like than it did yesterday (assuming May’s deal fails which it probably will)

Re: Brexit
 

"heil hitler"

That is the only way to go if we stay in the EU

Re: Brexit
 

So we take from that you prefer Parliament to be able to overrule the will of the electorate.

Re: Brexit
 

Well first of all it seems as if the Tories that want EEA might try to push for that in the aftermath of May’s deal failing and now they have a way to get it to a vote.

Re: Brexit
 

She did that on the 8 June 2017 and it failed miserably as it mortally weakened her government.

Re: Brexit
 

no we need to leave with a deal not a no deal Den and remember we are a parliament sovereignty


LBC
‏
Verified account

@LBC
Following
Following @LBC

More
BREAKING: Nigel Farage announces on LBC that he has quit Ukip, criticising the party's "obsession" with Islam and Tommy Robinson under the leadership of Gerard Batten

Re: Brexit
 

And that would require us to accept free movement, which is precisely why many people voted for Brexit.

As the majority of the electorate do not want free movement, how the hell is that any kind of solution?

Re: Brexit
 

Actually it's not - Motions and Amendments are not binding on the PM. Acts are law.

Motions are motions.

The executive still decides how to proceed.

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------

That is not true. They can debate but they cannot dictate what happens. The Government can still set out further plans and has 21 one days to do so. The executive, that's the government, still has the power on how it proceeds.

Re: Brexit
 

May announces plans to give parliament greater role in next stage of UK’s negotiation with EU.

Re: Brexit
 

You need to read up on how our Democracy works - we cannot order Parliament to do anything - if we are unhappy with our representative, our only option is to vote them out at the next election.

It may not be what you want, but it’s how it works...

Re: Brexit
 

Government will be on very thin ice if it wants to become the first to be held in contempt on two occasions.

It’s a fantastic analogy, if the sum total of two separate bad ideas with one common feature get a narrow majority you can’t claim the most popular option was the pub or bowling.

Re: Brexit
 

and mps will change law to stop it very few in parliament want a no deal Brexit and TM just mentioned a no Brexit again too

Re: Brexit
 

You can’t demonstrate that all of the 52% are against freedom of movement. Leaving the EU constitutes a range of options people weren’t asked about.

Re: Brexit
 

And what kind of deal is that then, Dave. The EU is not up for re-negotiation and the Norway solution does not deliver free movement and still requires payments into the EU.

So what is this deal you are talking about?

Re: Brexit
 

What is she doing? It’s her deal and the EU aren’t willing to negotiate further :confused:

---------- Post added at 18:45 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------

(Not addressed solely at den) What Brexiteer suggested we need a general election? I suggested that and got laughed out of town just a few days ago in this very thread.

Re: Brexit
 

You are right! Just like we had in 2016 .. no wait, hangon ... :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

So what have you been arguing for, then?

You have lots of objections but I haven't heard a credible alternative from you that delivers on the referendum.

The MPs who will now have more say are going to find out very soon that they actually have nothing positive to add.

My frustration is simply that this fiasco has only served to delay the inevitable and cause chaos for any business trying to plan for what will happen in the spring.

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

You know as well as I do that this was the main issue that came out time and time again.

Re: Brexit
 

as you know im no fan of TM but she done best she could but a no deal would be much worse so looks like this deal or no Brexit to me OB

this deal stops free movement is that what you brexiteers wanted OB
stops us paying money to EU didn't you want that OB

Re: Brexit
 

And as I have already said - they gave the people the choice to decide to leave the EU - the electorate instructed them to leave the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

The only reason for that was that it was being used by remainers to try to overturn the referendum.

Now it's beginning to look as though it is the only way the public are going to be able to land the final punch. However, this delay is causing uncertainty and the sooner Parliament understands the damage it is doing, the better. I am starting to detect a greater sympathy for Theresa May from the general public,and so those pushing us all towards another general election should be careful what they wish for.

Re: Brexit
 

If you have to resort to Nazi comparisons then the debate is really over ..

Re: Brexit
 

I’m pointing out she clearly isn’t being consistent if she has said the quote in Dem’s post. In my opinion of course there’s always more negotiations to be had.

I am under no obligation to post a credible alternative (in your mind) that delivers on the referendum.

I’ve suggested steps required to deliver Brexit, with a strong government and clear mandate. None of you want to hear it though, because it requires a second referendum to focus the minds of Parliament and remove the criticisms of the first, and requires a genuine transition period of a number of years for businesses to prepare.

We continue to edge closer to remain, and I for one think those who voted leave only have themselves to blame by being fixated on freedom of movement and not the future of our country.

Re: Brexit
 

I think you mean the majority of the electorate who voted i.e. the 37% ?

Re: Brexit
 

I suggested it because if we are to deliver Brexit we need strong government with a clear mandate, not a government that requires to bribe the DUP to govern at all. There’s too many different visions of Brexit to rely on all of her party to back it. These squabbles have cost us vital time to prepare and negotiate seriously.

Re: Brexit
 

Here we are again with the same rubbish - Cue Sonny and Cher. Must be Groundhog Day.

You cannot include people who could not be arsed to vote/ineligible to vote in a total % calculation, totally misleading and wrong!!!

Re: Brexit
 

By counting the 52% today you will be including a reasonable number of people who are dead.

Re: Brexit
 

Utter bollocks!!!

Re: Brexit
 

None of them have died? If they can achieve immortality I’d hope they’d be more likely to get work than unskilled EU nationals.

Re: Brexit
 

I said utter bollocks because you have no reasonable way, of any kind that what you are saying is even remotely true and it is actually very immoral to even want that to be true, pathetic!!!

Re: Brexit
 

According to the ONS:

“There were 607,172 deaths registered in the UK in 2017, an increase of 1.7% from 597,206 in 2016 and the highest number registered annually since 2003.”

They can’t all have voted remain/abstained. The electorate in theory could be divergent by about 1.2 million deaths and a similar number of births in 1998-2000 joining the electorate. For a wafer thin referendum there has to come a point where it’s simply “out of date” as a measure of the will of the living people.

Re: Brexit
 

So this is how pathetic and desperate you are that you want the old leavers dead and out of the way, so their vote is invalid ?

SAD!!!

Re: Brexit
 

I’m just stating a fact, apologies for being blunt in doing so, and certainly I haven’t wished anyone dead. The electorate would have been different by about 2.4 million people net at Brexit day if it had to happen.

I’m neither desperate to leave or remain, but I’ve outlined what I think the politicians are planning and what would be necessary to leave the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

They can pass a motion essentially command the government on what to do next. As this Spectator writer points out:

It's hard to see the government surviving if it ignores Parliament, Parliament can bring down the government.

Re: Brexit
 

You are not stating any fact, because as I said you have no reasonable way of measuring how many leavers have actually died and it is really disingenuous to even bring such a thing up.

Re: Brexit
 

It's a bit morbid to bring up but older voters as a demographic will be dying at a faster rate than younger voters. It's brought up in the context of Brexit but also the future of the Tory Party as the latter's demographic is declining but new Tory voters aren't taking their place as home ownership is arriving later in people's lives than it did 20 years ago.

Re: Brexit
 

The Governor-General of Australia removed a Prime Minister for less.

Re: Brexit
 

This is not Australia, do you have issues sticking with the facts?

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

It's not just a bit morbid - it is manifestly immoral to even think such things and very desperate to want people dead so their votes become invalid. Sad and very wrong and shows how some Remainers are really scraping the barrel with the desperation to stop Brexit. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

I’m only pointing out the importance of retaining the confidence or Parliament for a PM. It can often have unanticipated outcomes if you can’t.

It’s led us this far on the road to scrapping Brexit.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------

I don’t think it’s immoral. If, in a hypothetical example, this farce dragged on for another two years do you think 2022 should be bound by a 2018 result? What if we were still negotiating in 2026?

There has to come a line where it’s reasonable to accept it’s not the same electorate.

I’ve already said I’m neither desperate to leave or remain, but if we do leave it’s best to do it in a controlled manner. The inability to manage Brexit has put us ever closer to remaining, and it feels like we get closer every day when you see the language around it evolve and the Parliamentary arithmetic squeezed.

You even have Brexit supporting people now minded to think a General Election could be required to deliver Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

Well it's not immoral to reflect on how the electorate changes as generations die and new ones are born. It is to want people dead obviously.

The question is if Euroscepticism is related to growing older, or some other related demographic, or if the older generation were uniquely Eurosceptic than those who followed. I.E Those who grew up before we joined the EU vs those who grew up in it. Even without the possibility of another referendum it's an interesting question because of how it'll impact what happens in the future....

Re: Brexit
 

There is no evidence of any kind that Millions of leave voters have died - no way to comprehensively say otherwise.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

I am still YOUNG and very Euro-sceptic, I have no plans to die any time soon to suit some of you Remainers.

I really cannot believe how pathetic this discussion has become. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

It’s inherently impossible to suggest that over time the population of an electorate does not change. Statistically they are more likely to be leave voters - after all they did win as you keep reminding us!

Re: Brexit
 

And yes, I wonder why you and other Remainers keep having to be reminded!!!

Re: Brexit
 

No but many people in a demographic which was overwhelmingly Brexit supporting have died.

We're talking about demographics as a whole. There will be elderly Remainers and young Leavers. However demographically the majority of older people voted Leave and the majority of younger people voted Remain.

This is not an atypical way people think of the electorate. It's perfectly normal to discuss it. There are whole sections of political science that spend their time thinking about how changing demographics impact elections.

Re: Brexit
 

I’d prefer to not be called a remainer to be honest. I think we could make a success of Brexit but not in these chaotic circumstances. A second referendum would actually be helpful to the cause at present.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

Indeed, Sinn Fein entered the peace process on this basis. The difference in elections is now down to the small thousands between Unionist and Nationalists.

Re: Brexit
 

And so could have Remainers - we will never know for certain, it cannot be measured.

---------- Post added at 20:21 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------

I don't, we've had this discussion btw. A second referendum would just pro-long everything, causing business uncertainty and you could lose again, will you demand a third, make it the best of 5?

Re: Brexit
 

A second referendum is highly likely to cause even more division then we already have.

Re: Brexit
 

No, after a second referendum the parties and politicians have to make the case for a type of Brexit and put it to a GE. That way you aren’t at the whim of a few disgruntled ex-Ministers with marginally more friends than they have fingers on one hand.

We need a Government who enters negotiations with a destination in mind.

Sadly, if the leave camp cannot come to this conclusion it will implode under it’s own venom and people will vote to remain to end uncertainty. If we are lucky the leave camp will blame each other, and possibly Theresa May but she’s toast anyway and can fall on her sword in the national interest.

Re: Brexit
 

And you think by having a second referendum the falsehoods , fabrications ,etc . etc , etc from politicians from both sides are going to be suddenly going away , Somehow leopards don't change their spots.

Re: Brexit
 

So in your perverse view, the majority of the electorate who voted to leave should be told 'Tough, the losers will overturn your vote'.

This is such a nonsense argument. Why post it?

Re: Brexit
 

In that case the people would have to remove any obstacles in a General Election.

The flaws of the first referendum and squabbling internal divisions in both parties have cost us two years of negotiations. A General Election should be after a second referendum putting May’s best deal against Corbyn’s “jobs first Brexit” when drilled down into the details. That way we can have no wriggle room: people voted for a clear vision of Brexit in the full knowledge of the EU position and economic forecasts.

Until that happens the politicians have just enough cover to sabotage this.

Re: Brexit
 

The problem with that disgusting argument is that younger people get older and gain common sense.

Re: Brexit
 

Hmmmm Common sense is not just the domain of older people as there are many younger people who have plenty of common sense out there..

Re: Brexit
 

I wouldn’t call it perverse given the allegations of fraud and corruption. Indeed, it seems to be the direction Parliament is edging towards. To the point you yourself posted we need a general election to resolve this.

Seems quite reasonable that such major constitutional change should require a majority of the actual electorate to actively want it.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

Indeed, older generations get to just be bitter about the war and on average live a short period with the consequences with their pensions protected. Younger people have to live fifty years with the economic consequences of this bitterness.

Re: Brexit
 

Utter twaddle - I’m young enough to live another 50 years and I do not want my country to be in the corrupted EU !!!

Re: Brexit
 

What ridiculous assumptions you make and what utter twaddle you come out with. I will not take part any more in this ridiculous nonsense.

This country is now in an impossible position because of the undemocratic activities of remainers and you have no practical solutions of your own - none of you do.

I'm out.

Re: Brexit
 

Nothing perverse here. You keep misrepresenting the facts to reinforce your position. Keep saying the "majority of the electorate" instead of "majority of the electorate who voted" and I will keep correcting you.

There is a big difference between 37% and 50% ...

Re: Brexit
 

watched some of debate and seen one conservative brexiteer admited no way a no deal be allowed by parliament and she gonna vote for May's deal

Re: Brexit
 

That’s a shame you don’t wish to participate in discussion. I’ve told you and others that the warning signs were there politically that there wasn’t a will in Parliament to see this through.

I can understand your frustrations at the Brexit dream potentially dying, but that’s not actually a reason to dismiss my points out of hand.

I’ve said before leaving the EU requires strong government, a clear aim in negotiations and a lead in period of years to minimise economic impact. If we established our position 18 months ago and stuck to it businesses would have three years to prepare. Instead we are sitting three months before Brexit day weighing up a bad deal, no deal, Parliament wanting a role in negotiations and an increasing sense we may remain.

We are in this problem because no Government prepared for the possibility of a leave vote and we triggered A50 too quickly. The people voted, corruption aside, to leave the EU. They didn’t say “leave the EU as soon as possible with little/no preparations with a deal negotiated on the back of a cigarette paper at the last minute after three Brexit secretaries”.

I wouldn’t describe the country as in an impossible situation. There’s a very easy way out.

Re: Brexit
 

And it’s about time you stopped misrepresenting the facts to suit your one sided agenda. You cannot count people ineligible to vote or could not be arsed to in a % calculation and I will keep correcting you.

Re: Brexit
 

The problem is the use of the word electorate. The electorate is those entitled to vote. Whether they did so or not is irrelevant to the definition of that group. Just as it’s not appropriate to present it as 52% “of the population” as that group includes those not entitled to vote.

The 52% can only be framed as those entitled to vote who actively voted on the day. It’s a lower figure as a proportion of the electorate and the population.

I suppose in the flexible world of the leave voter “bad deal” has now been redefined to “good deal” so the definition of words has to remain fluid to keep the dream alive.

Helpfully the electoral commission published the number in 2016.

Electorate 100%: 46,499,537
Population 100% estimate: 65,600,000.

Re: Brexit
 

A reasonable analogy is if one is buying a house you make sure you have completely left no stone unturned before you purchase that house and not just buy that house without doing any homework on it and then realise when you move into that house there are problems in every bit of that house which then require significant repair and investment.

Re: Brexit
 

There’s still the possibility to do all these things, but nobody wants take the time or opportunity to have the adult conversation between the electorate, Parliament, Government and the EU. Time pressure, rather than force no deal appears to have more chance of forcing remain.

The freedom of movement brigade are showing their true colours. It wasn’t about trade, a good deal or a strong United Kingdom. It was dog whistle racism and xenophobia whatever the economic consequences.

Re: Brexit
 

Yet again, it’s bs desperation to try delegitimise the referendum result. I don’t give a shit how some of you remainers see it. But the numbers ars there. Leave won by over a million votes.

Re: Brexit
 

We aren’t trying to delegitimise the result. But by definition to say leave is what the majority of the electorate want, or the population want, it’s verifiably untrue. The number fails to meet the definition of majority of both the 46 and 65 million figures.

It’s what the majority of the people who chose to vote on a given day want. By definition that’s how a referendum is won and lost - I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. That on it’s own doesn’t delegitimise the result.

Re: Brexit
 

Indeed l have not stated anywhere that the result should be changed but that does not mean one should not hold a view on the utterly shambolic chaos since we had the referendum over two years ago.

Re: Brexit
 

The Conservative party being elected in the 2017 General Election with a mandate to leave the European Union which we are doing. However, not many people seem to accept the approach being taken.

Surely once you have a vote, in this case to put the Conservative Party in to power, should we be sticking by the outcome of the vote and supporting the Government? Anything else would be against the will of the people...

Re: Brexit
 

Thing is, that's how voting works, for anything not just referenda, it's who turns up on the day that counts, anything else is just meaningless nonsense that just smacks of sour grapes, else we could go through every GE result in history and say 'oh it was only 10% of the electorate' or whatever.

If you don't show - you don't get a say - simple.

Re: Brexit
 

Nobody is disputing that part.

However, the word electorate has a clear definition, like population. To use either of those words misrepresents what actually happened and at face value overstates the vote.

The most accurate statement that can be made is that the majority of voters selected the option to leave. Voters being the subset of the electorate who actually turned up.

---------- Post added at 09:30 ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 ----------

If you are relying on that election result as a mandate for the Conservatives to do anything then you are skating on very thin ice. A minority of voters and a minority Government.

Re: Brexit
 

What is happening regarding Theresa May and Brexit was utterly inevitable after the general election . It is what inevitably happens to minority governments throughout history. It was parliament that brought down the Jim Callaghan government . It was parliament that defeated the Labour governments repeatedly in the 1970's and it is now parliament that is taking control now.

Re: Brexit
 

Originally Posted by denphone View Post
A reasonable analogy is if one is buying a house you make sure you have completely left no stone unturned before you purchase that house and not just buy that house without doing any homework on it and then realise when you move into that house there are problems in every bit of that house which then require significant repair and investment.


Ask anybody who has bought a new build house.The "snagging list"on some of these jerry built houses are lengthy as can be seen from the media stories which frequently pop up on the news.Same as an old house you can get the survey done therefore relying on the competence of the surveyor but horror stories can emerge later on and the surveyors have their backside covered in well hidden clauses of the survey t&c's.
If you are entitled to vote, then cannot be bothered to, then you do not count in anyway.

Re: Brexit
 

I think the competence of the surveyors in this instance: Farage, Johnson, Mogg, is certainly under question.

The thing is we still have the deposit in our pockets and can walk away if need be.

Re: Brexit
 

Faisal Islam
‏
Verified account

@faisalislam
1h
1 hour ago


More
NEW: Sky sources - Government would not need Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50, law advisers have told ministers is the consequence of ECJ ruling - “might be needed politically, but not legally" - Minister.

Re: Brexit
 

I pointed this out before. It’s an executive function to trigger/withdraw A50.

That’s why Mogg was desperate to find 47 friends.

Re: Brexit
 

That's interesting in light of the opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona's opinion that the UK can unilaterally withdraw article 50 and in particular this passage;

Regardless of the opinion, I agree that it would be politically expedient to have an Act of Parliament.

Once again, thanks Gina Miller!

Re: Brexit
 

The Gina Miller case doesn’t actually change much in terms of revoking Article 50. A no confidence vote would remove any Government trying to do the opposite of what Parliament intended.

---------- Post added at 11:03 ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 ----------

Legal advice the Government ignored the will of Parliament over to be released in the next half hour. Prepare for a barrage of criticism of the plan from all sides.

Re: Brexit
 

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the UK doesn't need a Government or a Parliament . . it needs a Dictator


. . . oh darn, forget that. If we remain in the EU we will have one :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

I think that’s somewhat melodramatic. If/when we remain it’ll be the choice of our sovereign Parliament.

Re: Brexit
 

No it is not verifiable - Stop trying to attempt to correct me when you are not and yes you are trying to delegitimise the result.

The Majority of the electorate voted for Brexit - nothing YOU say will change this so how about enough of the telling of the lies?

Bringing in the whole population is irrelevant, you cannot include people ineligible to vote, could not be arsed to vote in a total vote tally after the vote because YOU lost. It's pathetic! :dozey:

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 ----------

FFS, more inaccurate nonsense - we gave parliament an instruction when they handed the choice to us to either leave or remain in the EU - the electorate told them we wanted to leave the EU!

Re: Brexit
 

Michael Gove to close debate on Brexit for government to try get some brexiteers to vote for deal

Re: Brexit
 

I’m sorry, but it’s perfectly verifiable. The words “majority”, “electorate” and “population” all have clear definitions.

The definition of electorate is “all of the people who are entitled to vote in an election”. That includes people who choose to not vote, to get a majority of that figure leave (or indeed remain) would need over 23 million votes.

On the final point, and to complete the circle, Parliament is sovereign. The people are not.

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

And there we have the legal advice.

The withdrawal agreement can leave us in a customs union with the EU for as long as they please.

Re: Brexit
 

You are not a talking dictionary, I am well aware of what things mean, so stop being so patronising - please pack it in with the fiction, YOU are still wrong - nothing you say changes the fact the electorate voted for Brexit.

And your last point which is again wrong!!!

We gave parliament an instruction when they passed the question or "sovereign" back on to us to ask us either to leave or remain in the EU - The electorate told parliament we wanted to leave the EU. Again, nothing you say will change this so again, perhaps you should stop it with the fiction.

Re: Brexit
 

here's a thought:

if we remain in the EU can we then stop sending £billions in foreign aid to countries that just pi$$ it up the wall?

after all, we will remain trading partners with the largest trading block in the world right on our doorstep

Re: Brexit
 

Seems reasonable. India have a space programme after all.

Re: Brexit
 

I think we should stop sending it to countries that clearly don't need it, say China - India, two very wealthy countries...

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

A line from the advice from the Attorney General that has just been released, says the UK with some Arbitration can actually leave the EU backstop system but Northern Ireland will be left in, meaning we are outside of a system NI are still in, the DUP reading this, will now see this as a sellout, I think the Confidence and Supply deal is at risk of being ripped up after this advice being released today.

Re: Brexit
 

The Attorney General’s legal advice to Cabinet on the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...rn_Ireland.pdf

Re: Brexit
 

hasn't it been already Mick as they been hinting lots recently

Re: Brexit
 

Not really, the DUP have still been voting with the government on some the votes. The exception is yesterday’s Contempt votes yesterday.

Re: Brexit
 

When push comes to shove the DUP can’t sell that. A huge victory for Sinn Fein.

Re: Brexit
 

BREAKING: DUP Deputy Leader, Nigel Dodds says Attorney General’s legal advice in full, is “Devastating”.

Re: Brexit
 

No wonder they did not want to publish it..

Re: Brexit
 

general election more likely as if there is a vote of no confidence DUP wont vote for tories now

Re: Brexit
 

Given the absolute dross on offer, who would anyone vote for?