Also in the news

[Fox In The Box 90]

Just now, EnderbyFox said:

Rees-Mogg  

 

He's certainly changed his tune from "The withdrawal agreement will leave us in a worse position than we are now" 

 

Hopefully leave voters will now realise he's just as self serving as the rest of them. 

Its only ever been about party politics and the furthering of careers, right from david cameron calling a referendum.

 

He didnt want to lose a few seats to UKIP and wanted to silence the eurosceptics in his party.

 

It was never about actually leaving.

 

Look at Boris' face the day after the referendum when the reality sunk in that he had won. 

 

He spent the campaign pandering to a certain "audience" all the time assuming he would lose and hoping to lose as narrowly as possible to have cameron at his weakest.

 

Instead, his audience fell for his, and others twaddle. Now he has to now pretend forever brexit is a good idea.

[Legend_in_blue]

The government has responded to the petition you signed – “Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.”.

Government responded:

This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.

It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government.

The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government.

British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.

This Government stands by this commitment.

Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.

Department for Exiting the European Union.

 

Fair play for actually responding.  Fact is this government can't pass anything through so if this government won't overturn the decision, someone else will.  It will come back to the people in some form or other.  

 

Thrash out the options later on, decide on nothing collectively, boot out the PMs deal for good, grant a longer extension and bring it back to the people.  

[Grebfromgrebland]

So the election was advisory so that she doesn't have to investigate election fraud but it must be pushed through regardless to keep public trust.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

7 hours ago, EnderbyFox said:

Rees-Mogg  

 

He's certainly changed his tune from "The withdrawal agreement will leave us in a worse position than we are now" 

 

Hopefully leave voters will now realise he's just as self serving as the rest of them. 

I don't blame him at all for changing his position. He believed like most the PM would uphold the law and take us out on WTO terms on March 29th were no deal agreed.

 

Now it's likely her deal or an even softer Brexit.

 

May is the one who lied and now parliament and the speaker have taken control he has to back it.

[RobHawk]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I don't blame him at all for changing his position. He believed like most the PM would uphold the law and take us out on WTO terms on March 29th were no deal agreed.

 

Now it's likely her deal or an even softer Brexit.

 

May is the one who lied and now parliament and the speaker have taken control he has to back it.

But MPs voted against no deal. Whilst it wasn't legally binding surely it's just democracy in action. 

 

Sound familiar? ?

 

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

But MPs voted against no deal. Whilst it wasn't legally binding surely it's just democracy in action. 

 

Sound familiar? ?

 

But they didn't - they voted to invoke Article 50 which legally meant we leave with or without a deal.

[Guest MattP]

Good. Be interesting to see how many rebel on this.

[Nick]

What’s the point in having indicative voting processes if there’s still no freedom for MP’s to vote outside of Party interests.

 

 

[davieG]

The DUP has backed two motions ahead of a Commons vote later, when MPs take control of parliamentary business to try to break the Brexit deadlock.

One asks for the result of the EU referendum in 2016 to be respected.

Another is the Malthouse Compromise, which calls for the Irish border backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements.

Having voted to seize control of Commons business, MPs are preparing to vote for their preferred Brexit option.

 

How does this Malthouse Compromise work hasn't May and the EU been trying for the last year to come up with alternative arrangements to the Back Stop and failed, why would anyone think this will work?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

What’s the point in having indicative voting processes if there’s still no freedom for MP’s to vote outside of Party interests.

Completely agree - whole lot should be a free vote.

[The Guvnor]

27 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

But MPs voted against no deal. Whilst it wasn't legally binding surely it's just democracy in action. 

 

Sound familiar? ?

 

Still not sure about the DUP but the ERG and Eurosceptics would have been holding out for ammendments to the back stop till the last minute its common sense, but if the options are almost what you wanted, but not quite, then surely that would be your preferred option to the end game which when you have a remain driven Parliament and Speaker, will almost certainly be no Brexit.

 

[Nick]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Completely agree - whole lot should be a free vote.

It just feels farcical when MP’s can’t agree on a way forward the idea is to get consensus votes on what might be agreeable to all. This process (unless mass rebellion takes place) leads down the same road rather than carving out a new one.

[Foxxed]

13 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Quite right. Not sure Diego Costa should be meddling in British politics, though.

I have the idea Diego Costa is about as clued in as most of government. I say we give him a chance.

[Guest MattP]

So there you have it, no hard border absolutely possible all along, was never anything to do with the deal at all.

 

How they got away with it I still have no idea, the British politicians who indulged this theory should be ashamed - they used the GFA as a weapon to try and soften Brexit as much as possible. 

[The Guvnor]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

So there you have it, no hard border absolutely possible all along, was never anything to do with the deal at all.

 

How they got away with it I still have no idea, the British politicians who indulged this theory should be ashamed - they used the GFA as a weapon to try and soften Brexit as much as possible. 

Fcuking hell would you believe it, the rabbit is pulled out of the hat, it was there all the time. It's not even the eleventh hour yet, ( well admittedly it is about ten to.) 

[StanSP]

How does she manage to get her job back... 

 

 

[Innovindil]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

So there you have it, no hard border absolutely possible all along, was never anything to do with the deal at all.

 

How they got away with it I still have no idea, the British politicians who indulged this theory should be ashamed - they used the GFA as a weapon to try and soften Brexit as much as possible. 

Inb4 memes are banned. 

 

[Guest MattP]

May's best PMQS for some time - going out with a bang?

[Nick]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

May's best PMQS for some time - going out with a bang?

Although ‘...the many opportunities in North East Lincolnshire’ was perhaps the point someone should have shouted out “Bollocks” 

[Countryfox]

Todays Mercury ...   woman can't seem to find or get back in contact with 'special' man she met on holiday in Benidorm ...   

 

Thats cus he's back with his wife you silly cow !!! ...    

 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

20 hours ago, Buce said:

Jussie Smollett: Prosecutors drop all charges against actor

Prosecutors have dropped all charges against US actor Jussie Smollett for allegedly staging a racist and homophobic attack.

The Empire star attended a court hearing in Chicago on Tuesday, where a judge sealed the case.

Mr Smollett, 36, pleaded not guilty this month to 16 counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly lying to police.

The black and openly gay actor thanked his supporters outside court after the hearing.

He said: "I have been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one.

"I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of."

• Jussie Smollett: A complete timeline
• 'Pain and anger' over Jussie Smollett

He added: "This has been an incredibly difficult time, honestly one of the worst of my entire life."

Mr Smollett vowed he would continue to "fight for the betterment of the lives of marginalised people everywhere".

The Cook County State's Attorney's office said in a statement: "After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr Smollett's volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case."

 

But according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago police Supt Eddie Johnson was not briefed on the decision to drop the charges.

He only learned of the surprise move while attending a police academy graduation ceremony, according to the city newspaper.

A police department source told the Sun-Times that Supt Johnson was "furious" and that the case against Mr Smollett was "rock solid".

Mr Smollett voluntarily agreed to give up his $10,000 (£7,500) bail money, his lawyer said, emphasising there had been no deal with state prosecutors to dismiss the charges.

Smollett attorneys Tina Glandian and Patricia Brown Holmes said in a statement that their client's record "has been wiped clean".

"He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement," the lawyers said.

"Jussie and many others were hurt by these unfair and unwarranted actions. The entire situation is a reminder that there should never be an attempt to prove a case in the court of public opinion."

Mr Smollett said he was attacked in the early hours on 29 January in downtown Chicago outside a sandwich shop by two masked men who shouted racist and homophobic slurs, poured bleach on him and put a rope round his neck.

He claimed they shouted: "This is Maga country", a reference to President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan, and that at least one of the assailants was white.

But Chicago police said Mr Smollett paid two brothers, both of whom are black, $3,500 to stage the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary" on the TV show.

His lawyer maintained outside court on Tuesday that the cheque was for nutrition and physical training.

Ms Holmes also alleged that brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo, who apologised for "their involvement in this situation" earlier this month, were Mr Smollett's attackers.

"We already know who attacked him," the lawyer told reporters. "The two brothers have said that they attacked him."

She could not offer a reason as to why the case "seemed to spiral somewhat out of control", but blamed Chicago police for not allowing the state to properly look into the incident.

"You should allow investigation, and allow the state to investigate a charge before you go to the press," Ms Holmes said.

Authorities had also accused Mr Smollett of sending a racist and homophobic letter to himself at a Fox studio beforehand.

The US president lashed out last month at the actor on Twitter, saying, "what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA".

Mr Smollett's family said in a statement to US media on Tuesday that the actor had been vindicated.

"Jussie is a son, a brother, a partner, a champion for human rights, and a genuine soul who would never be capable of what he was falsely accused of," said their statement.

"He was the victim of an assault and then falsely blamed for his own attack. This morning truth has prevailed and he has been vindicated.

"All charges have been dismissed and his record expunged (cleared). The painful incidents we've witnessed him endure over the past 7 weeks have been heartbreaking and unjust to say the least.

"While many were quick to rush to judgement before hearing the actual truth, we are grateful that the truth about Jussie has come to light.

"We look forward to bringing the real perpetrators to justice. We thank God and our village for standing by us during this trying time."

Mr Smollett stars as a gay musician on Fox's drama series Empire, which follows the ups and downs of a family-owned hip-hop label.

The verified Twitter account of the writers' team on Empire posted a celebratory tweet after Mr Smollett's court appearance.

Is this one of the court rulings you believe then?

[Alf Bentley]

49 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Todays Mercury ...   woman can't seem to find or get back in contact with 'special' man she met on holiday in Benidorm ...   

 

Thats cus he's back with his wife you silly cow !!! ...    

 

 

 

"Specials man she met in Benidorm"? I think I've found him, love....

 

 

 

Oh, hang on.... She says "Special man", not "Specials man" and he's not Jerry, he's "Steve from Leicester"....

 

 

 

Is that you, @AoWW?

[Fox In The Box 90]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

So there you have it, no hard border absolutely possible all along, was never anything to do with the deal at all.

 

How they got away with it I still have no idea, the British politicians who indulged this theory should be ashamed - they used the GFA as a weapon to try and soften Brexit as much as possible. 

No hard border with the technology or checks no one can ever describe.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

So there you have it, no hard border absolutely possible all along, was never anything to do with the deal at all.

 

How they got away with it I still have no idea, the British politicians who indulged this theory should be ashamed - they used the GFA as a weapon to try and soften Brexit as much as possible. 

 

 

We'll have to see what happens if No Deal is the outcome, I suppose: what stance the UK, Ireland, the EU, other trading nations and the WTO take.

 

However, it's unclear what Barnier means by this - particularly as the EU previously offered a solution involving no hard border and checks carried out elsewhere.

 

In the context of a possible Hard Brexit deal, the EU said that a hard border could be avoided if the UK accepted checks on food/livestock crossing between GB and NI plus some internal checks on other goods within N. Ireland.

 

The UK rejected that suggestion as the DUP wouldn't accept extra checks on trade crossing the Irish Sea (although some already exist) and a different status for N. Ireland, even though it already has a different status in multiple ways, ranging from a devolved parliament and cross-border institutions to a ban on gay marriage and severe limits on abortion.

 

To me, Barnier seems to be just expressing the political will to achieve various goals that come into conflict under No Deal: GFA, no hard border, SM integrity, UK market integrity.....requiring checks, so something has to give.

Maybe you're right that the EU would back down, accept loss of SM integrity and the WTO and competing trading nations would allow that? Seems doubtful. 

Maybe we'd be into a trade dispute at the WTO or other international courts with the EU demanding checks in the Irish Sea if the GFA takes precedence as an international treaty?

 

Hopefully we'll never have to find out....

[Countryfox]

 

And there you have it ....  saying  “I wish there fvckin P@kis would hurry up with my pizza”  ..   and calling someone a ”n1gger”  is not the worst thing you can say ...   which sort of makes it not too bad.   Wonder what other things count higher on the  racismometer ....