Of course I wouldn't like to say that there is direct link, but with the devaluation of the pound, Murdoch is now saving about £4 billion in buying Sky through his Fox network. The Prime Minister chose to give her interview to Sky, whereas in the past the national broadcaster has been the chosen. Could there be any link?
Interesting comment from David Davis saying even if MPs vote against the eventual deal Britain will still leave the EU. Nothing it seems will prevent Brexit from happening. David Davis has admitted that Britain may not be free from all EU rules until 2021. The Brexit Secretary said he believed it would only take two years to secure a trade deal, but asked if transitional arrangements could still be in place during the 2020 general election, he admitted that was a possibility. Mr Davis also insisted that Britain will still leave the EU if MPs vote against the Prime Minister's deal in parliament. Speaking to the BBC, he said: "The second thing to say here is that parliament, remember, gave the decision on leaving to the people by a vast majority. "It decided it was the people who make the decision in a referendum. So it is not for parliament to reverse that." It comes after Theresa May warned the European Union that she is prepared to walk away from the negotiating table as she set out her blueprint for Brexit. In comments that were hailed by Eurosceptics, the Prime Minister told EU leaders yesterday that any attempt to “punish” Britain would be “an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe” that her Government will not accept. Mrs May faces a grilling by MPs over her Brexit plans at today's PMQs, after confirming Britain will quit the single market and warning she will walk away from exit talks rather than accept a "punitive" deal.
When you hear Brexit means Brexit and Brexit means Red White and Blue Brexit it all gets even... clearer
For most people it could not have been any clearer yesterday, the uncertainty is how much of our reasonable offer will be accepted by the EU. I believe the odds on a deal are no better than 50% especially if the EU ask for agreement on a ridiculously high fee for leaving.
Brexit, in the ideas of the Brexiters means this: I go to my wife and say 'I want a divorce'. I also want to be good friends afterwards - I require access to all the best parts of our marriage (as before), but do not want to share any of the responsibilities. I also require that you give in to all of my demands - if you don't then things will get very bad for you. But I am still your friend ! Theresa May speaks of friendship against the background of 'We are only interested in your money and your trade', nothing else. We want your money - we do not want you. A very strange idea of friendship. She goes on with the threat that if her 'friends' do not play ball - then she will open up some kind of tax oasis (something like Singapore) directly before the gates of Europe. Once again, a strange idea of friendship - loaded with threats. Still Britain wants to 'pick the cherries off the top''. Now it is in a different form ie. leave first and then negotiate something which still guarantees us access to the free market. Still we want your money and not you. Well, we want some of you - like the millions of European tourists who spend their money in London every year, but not the Rumanian fruit pickers. you want to 'divide' Europeans in this way ? If the one goes then the other does as well. Nexit, on this basis, will see a drop in contact, on all levels, between Britain and its closest neighbours. Economic, in terms of movement of all kinds, in terms of security cooperation, educational, cultural, need I go on. How do the Brexiters dare to assume that Europeans will still want to buy British products, if they, themselves, are not welcome there ? But 'Nexit' is based on the idea that 'there are others' - namely America. But the USA is now in the hands of the most isolationist president since World War 2 - who promises much, because he wants to help the EU. collapse, but who (like the isolationists of the past in the USA) looks on imports as a sign of 'dependency' and thinks 'we can produce that'. Whose only interest in 'free trade' is to find a dumping ground for America's excess agricultural products (so gene manipulated that nobody else wants them). A kind of mini TTIP arrangement which would allow multi national corporations to hold Britain over a barrel - but still the Brexiters will ramble on about 'sovereignty'.
Theresa May's statesmanlike speech yesterday was a triumph in many areas. Firstly it dispelled any idea that the government were not fully on top of their brief to decide on the best strategy. Secondly it dashed the hopes of the remoaners who somehow hoped a fairy godmother would reverse the democratic vote. Thirdly it left the EU negotiators in no doubt the UK will not be bullied into a bad deal. There are many non EU countries queuing up for free trade deals with the UK once we throw off the shackles of EU membership. Now we just need to invoke art 50 and get on with it a.s.a.p.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...igners-pensioners-spain-healthcare?CMP=twt_gu So who on here is on the way back?
Peter Lilley is correct, they should be lobbying the governments of wherever they live to take up May's offer of a quick resolution to this problem. Which other European countries are being difficult I wonder?
Labour MPs will be forced to vote in favour of triggering of article 50, Jeremy Corbyn has revealed. He said he would be prepared to impose a three line whip on his MPs. He also said "i've made it very clear: the Labour Party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.' Do you think he has one eye on the by elections?
I see the Supreme Court ruling on whether Parliament has to trigger Article 50 is due on January 24th
In many respects this ruling has lost its importance as the government has already devised plans to limit the scope of interference, as it sees things. With most of the Labour MPs backing the government it should be just a formality to invoke article 50. The interesting bit is how much opposition the pro remain House of Lords dare indulge in, hopefully not much.
I still do not know why TM bothered to contest the case - certainly why she went to appeal. Parliament was always going to follow the referendum result. This just delayed things. The Lords will interfere at their peril. As you know I support remain but Parliament has a constitutional duty and most people expect that to be followed.
Because she was playing for time? The judges have been asked not only if she can invoke Article 50 without Parliamentary approval, but if it can be revoked. The latter point seems to be unclear, and they could put it to the ECJ for a ruling. That would give her even more time.
Her date for invoking article 50 has constantly remained within the same timeframe. She obviously gambled that she had nothing to lose with the appeal especially with a backup plan in case she did.
I did not know that. That is a very important point and I am surprised it has not been picked up on more. If they refer it to the ECJ it would totally wreck the plan to trigger brexit - probably this year.
Winston Churchill is rightly back in the Oval Office. The Telegraph has announced that Theresa May will be the first foreign leader to meet Trump next week. Trump's team has indicated a trade deal with the UK could be concluded within a few months, surely things are going better than anyone could imagine.