horsefly

Indeed! They explicitly accepted the result of the referendum, promised to renegotiate the much criticised Johnson deal to get a better deal for the country, then said they would give the country a further opportunity to express their will in a legally binding vote on that deal. The idea that there was anything ambiguous in that policy is pure far-right propaganda. The idea they could have simply said Labour will ignore the referendum result is about as foolishly undemocratic as it could get.

Indeed! Like most of what he did he was useless, and as result was side-lined during the referendum. None of that alters the fact that the Labour Party's official position was very clearly anti-Brexit.

You lied about the Labour's Party's official policy during the referendum, and you lied about the Labour Party's official policy after the referendum. You made up rubbish that would even embarrass the Daily Mail. You continue to fail to name a single Labour MP of which you claim there are many who resigned because of its Brexit policy. You have now just lied about what I have claimed; do point out where I say "nobody is disillusioned" or any of the other rubbish you spout in that absurd sentence. I never said anything remotely of the sort, so yet again we find you trying to distract from the lies you have spouted and for which I have called you out. "Strange take" indeed when you have to lie so blatantly about what someone else has said when it can easily be confirmed by reading the actual posts. You should apologise for those lies, but given past evidence I expect you will just double down and make up more lies. As for your absurd edit, your inability to be honest remains intact. The policy was not remotely ambiguous. The line was very clear; we accept the result of the referendum, we will renegotiate the deal with the EU to ensure closer and better trade and social arrangements, we will then let the public vote on that deal, that vote will be legally binding. You may struggle intellectually to read the manifesto position, I've yet to meet anybody else who finds any difficulty.

I don't suppose the following is connected in any way to the fact that the Tory Party relied for so long on the donations of Russian oligarchs: Ten oligarchs hit with sanctions for their links to Russia's war in Ukraine had taken advantage of the U.K.'s former visa program for people with high net worth, Home Secretary Suella Braverman has revealed. The Tier 1 investor route was closed last year, partly in response to concerns that Russians were abusing these so-called golden visas. A "small minority" of 6,312 people who had used the visa route between 2008 and 2015 "were potentially at high risk of having obtained wealth through corruption or other illicit financial activity, and/or being engaged in serious and organized crime," Braverman told Parliament in a written statement. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Ukraine-war/Ukraine-war-Free-to-read/Ukraine-latest-China-s-trade-with-Russia-hit-new-high-in-2022

No need to quote one Labour MP saying "don't vote Brexit". Corbyn joined Cameron on the platform at the launch of the "Remain" campaign, and the party's official anti-Brexit position was formulated and delivered by Starmer on many occasions during the referendum (as the briefest research would have informed you if you had bothered to do any). The 2019 Labour Party Manifesto also stated very clearly what the Party position was after the leave vote: The Final Say on Brexit Labour will give the people the final say on Brexit. Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain. A Labour government will implement whatever the people decide. Only a Labour government will put this decision in the hands of the people to give you the final say. This will be a legally binding referendum and we will implement the people’s decision immediately. The Tories have failed for three years to get Brexit sorted, in a shambles of repeated delays and uncertainty. Whether people voted Leave or Remain in 2016, people and businesses are crying out for politicians in Westminster to finally focus on the wider challenges we face. Labour rules out a no-deal Brexit, and we will end the scandal of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted on no-deal preparations. No deal has never been a viable option. It would do enormous harm to jobs, rights, security and to our NHS. Labour has led the campaign to stop a no-deal Brexit. A majority Tory government would pose a renewed threat of the UK crashing out with no deal. Only a Labour government can prevent this. We will rip up the deeply flawed deal negotiated by Boris Johnson. We opposed his deal precisely because it would do such harm to workers’ rights, environmental protections and to our manufacturing industry. Boris Johnson’s deal is even worse than Theresa May’s: it would leave the UK £70 billion worse off by 2029; it would give the green light to deregulation undermining UK manufacturing; and it would leave our NHS at the mercy of a trade deal with Donald Trump. This sell-out deal is unacceptable to Labour. Labour will secure a new Brexit deal – one that protects jobs, rights and the environment, avoids a hard border in Northern Ireland and protects the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process. We will also ensure that there is no change in the status or sovereignty of Gibraltar. Our deal will be based on the principles we have set out over the last two years. It will include: A permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union, which is vital to protect our manufacturing industry and allows the UK to benefit from joint UK-EU trade deals, and is backed by businesses and trade unions. Close alignment with the Single Market – ensuring we have a strong future economic relationship with the EU that can support UK businesses. Dynamic alignment on workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental protections so that UK standards keep pace across Europe as a minimum, allowing the UK to lead the way, not fall behind. Continued participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in such vital areas of co-operation as the environment, scientific research and culture. Clear commitments on future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and shared databases, making people safer at home and abroad. Labour will secure a revised Withdrawal Agreement that provides legal protection for citizens’ rights, meets our international obligations – particularly with regard to the Good Friday Agreement – and ensures an appropriate transition period to allow businesses and citizens to adapt to any new arrangements. We will also secure robust and legally binding protections for workers’ rights, consumer standards and environmental protections, and ensure level-playing- field protections are maintained. Labour will never accept an outcome that puts rights and standards at risk. Once we have secured this new deal we will put it to a legally binding referendum alongside the option of remaining in the EU. This will take place within the first six months of a Labour government. Labour is the only party that can heal the harmful divisions in our communities and address the devastation caused by 10 years of austerity, ruthlessly imposed on society by the Tories and Lib Dems. While other parties have exacerbated polarisation, defining everyone by how they voted in the 2016 EU Referendum, Labour has consistently reached across this divide. Only Labour will deliver a final say referendum. Only Labour will offer the choice of remaining in the EU, or leaving with a sensible deal. This final say referendum will not be a re-run of 2016. It will be legally binding. Labour will implement the decision of the British people immediately. Labour will introduce legislation to facilitate this referendum and to provide legal certainty and stability following the result. We will introduce a Withdrawal Agreement and Referendum Bill, providing the legal basis to conduct and implement the outcome of the referendum. We will scrap the Brexit legislation currently proposed by the Tories and introduce new legislation that is in line with Labour’s priorities and principles to protect our economy, trade, jobs and rights. This will include new legislation to ensure support and certainty for UK farmers, our fishing industry and protection for our natural environment. Labour recognises the huge benefits of immigration to our country. Many British citizens have benefited from freedom of movement, which has given them the opportunity to study, work or retire abroad. Likewise our public services and our industry have benefited from skilled workers coming here. Labour believes that citizens’ rights should never have been used as a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations, and recognises the huge anxiety this has caused for the three million EU nationals living in the UK and the 1.2 million UK nationals who have made their home elsewhere in the EU. We will end the uncertainty created by the EU Settlement Scheme by granting EU nationals the automatic right to continue living and working in the UK. This new declaratory system will allow EU nationals the chance to register for proof of status if they wish, but will mean they no longer have to apply to continue living and working in this country. This will help ensure reciprocal treatment for UK citizens living in the EU. It will also prevent a repeat of the shameful Windrush scandal and avoid unnecessarily criminalising hundreds of thousands of EU nationals. If in a referendum the British people decide to remain in the EU, this must not mean accepting the status quo. Labour will work with partners across Europe to make the case for radical reform of the EU – in particular to ensure that its collective strength is focused on tackling the climate emergency, tax evasion and ending austerity and inequality. The EU needs a new political direction and, if the people decide the UK should remain in the EU, Labour will lead the way to ensure that change. For too long a politically inflicted wave of austerity has damaged communities across Britain and across Europe. The most vulnerable members in our society have suffered, while the super-rich continue to be rewarded by a system that allows them to thrive at the expense of the many. This must change. If the country decides to remain, a Labour government will take a different approach and strive to ensure that the EU works for people across our communities. The EU should focus on policies that value investment, protect public services and make those who have the most pay their fair share. If people decide to leave, a Labour government will work constructively with the EU on vital issues of mutual interest and to the mutual benefit of the UK and EU. But we will leave the EU. Most importantly, under a Labour government, you will get the final say on Brexit. I wonder how many people would now have loved an opportunity to vote on the very clear and very sensible deal outlined in the manifesto above? While you contemplate this, do feel free to list all those MPs who you claim, "literally quit because of the party's stance on Brexit".

Except that is precisely what they did.

Clearly non-binary robins

What is supposed to be the relevance of the fact that the majority of jurors were female (shall we add misogyny to your list of traits)? Where is your evidence that they were "false accusations"? None of the witnesses have been charged with perjury (but still you claim they are guilty of that crime). Enough said!

The ITV podcasts are excellent, and in any sane world should put an end to any suggestion that Johnson has a future as a politician (let alone PM). I found episodes 3 and 4 particularly revealing. They also raise serious questions about the role of the Police in this sorry cover-up of blatant law-breaking. Having said for months there was nothing to investigate the Met suddenly decide on the eve of the publication of Sue Gray's report that there were after all issues to investigate. They thereby sabotaged the release and impact of the Gray report. Their subsequent investigation was run in an appallingly incompetent and irrational fashion, and ought to raise serious concerns that it was deliberately designed to have minimal impact on Johnson. There was a mountain of evidence showing Johnson had attended and authorised several parties so it was inevitable they had to find him guilty of breaches. Thus I have always been suspicious that they only charged Johnson for the least egregious breach of the law (his birthday party) in order to ignore the grotesque bacchanalian events he attended on other occasions. There really must be an independent investigation into the conduct of the Police during this time.

Are you suggesting that the Royals' press teams release this stuff without the assent of their masters? Surely not!

Spot on! I was literally searching YouTube at this very moment for that "sublime pass" you just mentioned. Only he out of the current squad (at this time) would have been capable of the vision and execution involved.

I don't follow him on social media, but can't remember anyone re-posting something he has said that could be deemed as "provoking" the sort of hateful stuff of which he has often been in receipt. As for "throwing toys out of a pram and acting like a prima donna". I have seen no evidence that this is a justified description. He happens to be a higher profile player at the club because his previous performances marked him out as a player of genuine talent (ask Shearer, Lineker and co). He is far from alone in being such a player who lost his form for a period of time. I haven't the slightest knowledge of why he lost his form, and as far as I can see no other Norwich City fan has either. For all we know there are a multitude of explanations, many of which would deserve sympathy and encouragement, and not the vile abuse that has often been the case. In the meantime I will reserve judgement until (if at all) actual evidence emerges that he persistently behaved in ways that warrant damnation. I look forward to him showing his true capabilities in his future career; just a shame it won't be Norwich but some other team that will benefit.

It's not "social media" that has been cruel to him, it's a significant contingent of so-called Norwich fans that have enjoyed laying into him on a persistent basis irrespective of form or relevance to football.

Despite the fact South Norfolk constituents have seen no evidence at all that Fatty Bacon has been active in the constituency for months (indeed years), I thought I would send the following Email in the light of revelations from the Westminster Accounts: "To: Richard Bacon MP I note that Sky News' Westminster Accounts show you received a £5000 donation from Phillip Jeans Homes Ltd (a building company based in Loddon). You recently produced a report (at the request of Boris Johnson) in which you called for the release of more land for the building of "self commissioned homes". Would you please explain to me and your constituents how this does not represent a conflict of interests." Of course I accept that there is a nil chance of receiving a reply. It would be unfair to expect the man to break a lifetime habit.

Oh well! There's always a silver lining: Richard Branson’s wealth drops $100 million after failed Virgin Orbit launch https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/richard-branson-s-wealth-drops-100-million-after-failed-virgin-orbit-launch/ar-AA16a3Vy?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=15c6dca4c6eb4c17b0795f43f0bce1a7

Apparently he's denied it's him in the photo. He said it's Michael Green or Sebastian Fox, but definitely not himself.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-tory-minister-quits-the-party-and-brands-it-overcome-with-ideology-and-self-obsession/ar-AA1696Sd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7a0f493639184fe1970a6333c1e78338

Why has the Daily Star not headlined: "Virgin couldn't get it up"?

Very much what Wes Streeting has said. Primary care is at the forefront of his proposals for reform. Apparently it costs the NHS roughly 5 times as much for a patient to end up in A and E than it does for them to visit a GP practice. What we need is a government that recognises the need to develop a strategy for the health of the nation that acknowledges the interrelated nature of all aspects of modern life that impact upon the NHS. It should be motivated by one key principle: "How do we keep people out of hospitals". For example, my partner specialises in diabetes; the figures for the number of cases per capita has increased astronomically in recent years. Particularly shocking is the increasing number of children who are diagnosed. Type 2 diabetes (which accounts for most of the increase) is very much avoidable, and in any sane world prevention is precisely what should be prioritised. The fact that 30%+ of school children are now considered obese is not only shocking, but also an absurd neglect of the costs the individual incurs in terms of their own life opportunities but also the cost they will likely make upon the NHS. Ensure kids are well fed and fit and and you increase the likelihood that they will stay out of hospital. Thus, ensuring school meals are available and nutritious, ensuring kids have safe walking and cycling routes to school, that their education includes physical activity etc, are not only worthwhile things in themselves but also an important part of a health of the nation strategy. The same sorts of things can be said of all aspects of life across all ages. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news/children-type-2

https://sqaf.club/goals-from-corners-stats/

Apparently the Saudi regime for one. The very same regime she (as PM) banned her ministers from visiting because of its human rights record.

Interesting that he likes to incite others into insurrection but doesn't ever quite make it to the event himself. A typical right-wing coward.

Utterly naïve as usual. On your plan we stay in the Championship for several seasons building up a squad that will somehow magically be in a better position to compete at PL level despite having no PL experience. First, if we stay in the championship we won't be able to afford to bring in anyone likely to be capable of competing at PL level. Secondly, any talent we develop from the academy squads who shows enough prospect of being PL quality will have to be sold off to make up for the loss of PL money. Thirdly, any player with enough talent to compete at PL level is not going to hang around NCFC while it "consolidates" in mid-table Championship obscurity. Jesus! How much evidence do you need to see to see what happens to clubs who languish in the Championship.

Hahahahaha! You didn't get it did you!!!

Will be delighted to. Shouldn't be long now.