When is Labour going to realise that a Remain strategy will actually benefit them, I wonder
Didn't most Labour seats vote for Brexit though?
I dunno if that even matters at this point. When the government's taking one clear side in the most significant and divisive political debate of a generation, maybe the opposition should actually consider opposing.
I can understand Labour not outright opposing Brexit. There was a democratic vote, and Leave won. They cheated, they lied, and the result has us heading for a cliff, but the result is the result.
However, there's nothing stopping Labour from telling the truth about Brexit: that it's a terrible idea and it should be stopped, legitimately, via another referendum. Instead, they're also saying it's a good idea. Quite possibly they'll lose votes, but I'm betting they'd pick up an awful lot from people who thought they were the best chance of stopping Brexit. At the moment they're losing badly in the polls and I can't be the only person who isn't going to vote for them any more precisely because of their stance over Brexit.
They will never stop being arseholes. It's like getting Paul Rudd to clean up his plates or something.
I feel like this might backfire on them
It provides a focus for the cross party consensus that was demonstrated with the Yvette Cooper amendment the other day. Bercow has shown a clear preference for selecting amendments with broad, cross party support.
It could just be the seed around which an actual course of action could crystallise, and it being that or no deal might just be enough to bring waverers on board.
Essentially May has taken her biggest coercive tool (the fact that legislation defaults to leaving with no deal) and handed it to whichever group can build enough support around a credible course of action to get their amendment selected as the single permitted amendment.
I can understand Labour not outright opposing Brexit. There was a democratic vote, and Leave won. They cheated, they lied, and the result has us heading for a cliff, but the result is the result.
If this does not contradict "they won democratically and we should respect that", I don't know what will.
Also, they didn't just cheat and lie, they got help from Russia and murdered pro-remain politicians.
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I can understand Labour not outright opposing Brexit. There was a democratic vote, and Leave won. They cheated, they lied, and the result has us heading for a cliff, but the result is the result.
If this does not contradict "they won democratically and we should respect that", I don't know what will.
Also, they didn't just cheat and lie, they got help from Russia and murdered pro-remain politicians.
You left out the bit where they also tweaked poll results to profit off of currency movements. Which is small potatoes relative to the murder thing, but helps to show just how selfishly dickish they all are.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I can understand Labour not outright opposing Brexit. There was a democratic vote, and Leave won. They cheated, they lied, and the result has us heading for a cliff, but the result is the result.
If this does not contradict "they won democratically and we should respect that", I don't know what will.
Also, they didn't just cheat and lie, they got help from Russia and murdered pro-remain politicians.
You're conflating a right-wing nutjob who murdered an MP with everyone on the Leave side. I would agree that the Leave rhetoric inflamed feelings and contributed to her death but I think implying one whole side ('they') murdered Jo Cox is pushing it.
I'd agree that there's a case for claiming the referendum isn't entirely valid, but Labour isn't making it, and before setting it aside they'd have to convince people it is invalid, which is something they're manifestly not interested in doing.
I can understand Labour not outright opposing Brexit. There was a democratic vote, and Leave won. They cheated, they lied, and the result has us heading for a cliff, but the result is the result.
If this does not contradict "they won democratically and we should respect that", I don't know what will.
Also, they didn't just cheat and lie, they got help from Russia and murdered pro-remain politicians.
You're conflating a right-wing nutjob who murdered an MP with everyone on the Leave side. I would agree that the Leave rhetoric inflamed feelings and contributed to her death but I think implying one whole side ('they') murdered Jo Cox is pushing it.
I'd agree that there's a case for claiming the referendum isn't entirely valid, but Labour isn't making it, and before setting it aside they'd have to convince people it is invalid, which is something they're manifestly not interested in doing.
I can understand Labour not outright opposing Brexit. There was a democratic vote, and Leave won. They cheated, they lied, and the result has us heading for a cliff, but the result is the result.
If this does not contradict "they won democratically and we should respect that", I don't know what will.
Also, they didn't just cheat and lie, they got help from Russia and murdered pro-remain politicians.
You're conflating a right-wing nutjob who murdered an MP with everyone on the Leave side. I would agree that the Leave rhetoric inflamed feelings and contributed to her death but I think implying one whole side ('they') murdered Jo Cox is pushing it.
I'd agree that there's a case for claiming the referendum isn't entirely valid, but Labour isn't making it, and before setting it aside they'd have to convince people it is invalid, which is something they're manifestly not interested in doing.
Quiet Bogart.
You're sounding pragmatic.
Almost.....blairite
GET HIM
We're certainly not advocating violence towards Bogart (get him), but people have a right to make their feelings known without fear of harm or abuse, and it's not productive for people to point out that non-insane options exist but are being ignored by everyone in a position to take them.
So we're clearly not saying get him (get him), but people (get him) are free to make their own choices (get him).
Now that's a call for direct action if I ever saw one.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited January 2019
i think in any case the validity of the referendum is moot given that implicitly both parliament and gov accepted the result; if we want to play the "not valid" card we kind of have to explain why it was accepted as valid for so long without appropriate constitutional recourse.
my view is that labour should be, as you say, coming out for remain but structured as a coherent vision that emphasises:
1) the incredible power that being in the eu has granted the uk, and the insanely good deal we already had (you could almost pitch this as "ha-ha! we already fooled those FOOLISH EUROPEANS" if you really felt like it)
2) the direction of travel of the eu being mostly good and the uk being a vital part of ensuring that good direction of travel (plus the fact that we have a ridiculous ability to opt out of literally anything built into our membership because specialflower.jpg, so theres zero risk of further loss of powers unless we want it)
3) the eu being both a means and an example of the kind of benign internationalism and cooperation that the labour party and most uk citizens intuitively think is good
4) our contribution to the eu being both increasingly sensibly used (CAP shrinking, etc) and also extremely small relative to our other spending (£13bn versus say £150bn on pensions)
5) valid criticisms of the eu have been hijacked by far-right social conservatives who are suggesting a remedy that not only fails to address those criticisms but ignores the very real methods by which we can fix those problems from within the eu
i always felt the negative framing that has tended to dominate - we should stay in the eu or else - is very easily countered by bullshit merchants who can just say everything will be better when we leave for unspecified reasons. a case that emphasises uk agency and power within the eu as well as the idea that the uk staying in europe both strengthens our and europes ability to defend both our and their interests is something you dont hear get put forward much!
EDIT: the other problem i have with attacking the 2016 ref on those grounds is that there is a very deeply-ingrained set of ideas in the right wing media about why those criticisms shouldnt be taken seriously; they just say "who cares if leave overspent, remain had gov spending on its side so the totals were small, and these were already looked into and found to be not that serious, and who cares about conspiracy theory stuff about steve bannon" or whatever. i havent seen such a strong already-constructed set of rejections for a positive "we are pretty powerful in the eu" case already because that requires more knowledge about how the eu works and what the uk has done in the past, which is mostly lacking, and i think can be constructed so it taps into the same "POWERFUL BRITANE" sense that a lot of the leave wto argument people are pushing
I need to find that Yes Minister clip where Sir Humphrey explains that we joined the EEC to screw over the French.
That argument would probably help to change some minds.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
The question is how many of those 433 are 'no deal will be awesome' types.
about 50-70 as far as i know. there is an interesting question of how many conservative mps would split for no deal in event of may deal falling through, but i suspect it would not be that many
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The question is how many of those 433 are 'no deal will be awesome' types.
about 50-70 as far as i know. there is an interesting question of how many conservative mps would split for no deal in event of may deal falling through, but i suspect it would not be that many
The fun here is that if the 'moderate' (as far as any plan to leave the EU can be described as such) plan is shot down that's going to leave either the two more radical plans (no-deal or no-brexit), or just punting and going for a general election or another referendum. I'm assuming they'll also ask for, and get, an extension if one of the punting options is chosen. I don't have huge amounts of faith that the MPs won't suddenly get the stupids and decide that Brexit means Brexit, no matter how painful.
2016-2018 have really lowered my opinions of everything.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+3
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
The question is how many of those 433 are 'no deal will be awesome' types.
about 50-70 as far as i know. there is an interesting question of how many conservative mps would split for no deal in event of may deal falling through, but i suspect it would not be that many
The fun here is that if the 'moderate' (as far as any plan to leave the EU can be described as such) plan is shot down that's going to leave either the two more radical plans (no-deal or no-brexit), or just punting and going for a general election or another referendum. I'm assuming they'll also ask for, and get, an extension if one of the punting options is chosen. I don't have huge amounts of faith that the MPs won't suddenly get the stupids and decide that Brexit means Brexit, no matter how painful.
2016-2018 have really lowered my opinions of everything.
yes the current conservative party are an astonishingly mediocre bunch, far more so than was the case 30 years ago. you can see this both at the ministerial level and the planning/policy/spad level
most of it slid by because nobody cared about their total failure to align eg spending policy to other policy and so on, but the moment something that required actual skill turned up they demonstrated a fairly comprehensive level of shallowness
EDIT: if you consider their only major policies - universal credit and cutting the deficit - they botched uc so hard and in such a basic way that the minister in question resigned, and the degree of cynicism displayed by both the targets of spending reductions and the failure to meet their own targets + incredibly slow recovery due to simultaneous fiscal and monetary contraction due to eg minimum reserve requirement changes
they are ABSURDLY useless
surrealitycheck on
+6
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
from the guardian live brexit blog
fairly strong stuff for the japanese pm to say in public...
fairly strong stuff for the japanese pm to say in public...
Yeah I dont think we'll need to reainimate Alan Turing to crack the oh-so-subtly encrypted message there.
I can't imagine Abe is very happy with our bullshit messing with all these Japanese investments... Must we burn bridges and alienate partners because of stupid?
fairly strong stuff for the japanese pm to say in public...
Yeah I dont think we'll need to reainimate Alan Turing to crack the oh-so-subtly encrypted message there.
I can't imagine Abe is very happy with our bullshit messing with all these Japanese investments... Must we burn bridges and alienate partners because of stupid?
Seen this speech by David Lammy in a few places, worth reposting it. Spoilered for length.
I have faced many challenges in the two decades for which I have sat in the House, but Sunday 7 August 2011, the morning after the Tottenham riots, was by far the greatest. Walking on broken glass, past burnt-out cars, homes and businesses, comforting men and women who were still in their pyjamas, I saw the place where I had lived for my whole life turned to ashes.
Many members of the community were urging me to say that the killing of Mark Duggan by police, which had sparked the riots, justified that rage: that the families made homeless, the burnt-out buses and houses and the looted shops were worth it. They told me I had to say that that wrong was right. It was not easy, but I had to look members of my community in the face, tell them that the violence was a disgrace, and condemn it unequivocally. Why? Because we have a duty to tell our constituents the truth, even when they passionately disagree. We owe them not only our industry but our judgment. We are trusted representatives, not unthinking delegates, so why do many in the House continue to support Brexit when they know that it will wreck jobs, the NHS and our standing in the world?
This is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the Brexit debate. Most Members now recognise that in private, but do not say it in public. Brexit is a con, a trick, a swindle, a fraud. It is a deception that will hurt most of the people it promised to help. It is a dangerous fantasy that will make every problem it claims to solve worse. It is a campaign won on false promises and lies. Both Vote Leave and Leave.EU broke the law. Russian interference is beyond reasonable doubt.
By now, every single campaign promise made in 2016 has come unstuck. Brexit will not enrich our NHS; it will impoverish it. Our trade deal with Donald Trump will see US corporations privatise and dismantle it, one bed at a time. Even the promises on immigration, which has so greatly enriched our country, are a lie. After Brexit, immigration will go up, not down. When we enter into negotiations with countries such as India and China, they will ask for three things—visas, visas and more visas—and they will get them, because we will be weak.
Then there is the myth about restoring parliamentary sovereignty. The last two years have shown what a joke that is. The Prime Minister has hoarded power like a deluded 21st-century Henry VIII. Impact assessments have been hidden, votes have been resisted and blocked, and simple opponents of Government policies have been bullied and threatened to get into line. Even when we forced a meaningful vote, the Prime Minister cancelled it, certain we would reject her disastrous deal—and oh, we will reject it, because it is a lose-lose compromise that offers no certainty for our future. All that it guarantees is more years of negotiation, headed by the same clowns who guided us into this farce in the first place.
We are suffering from a crisis of leadership in our hour of need. This country’s greatest moments came when we showed courage, not when we appeased: the courage of Wilberforce to emancipate the slaves in the face of the anger of the British ruling class, the courage of Winston Churchill to declare war on Hitler in the face of the appeasers in his Cabinet and the country, and the courage of Attlee and Bevan to nationalise the health service in the face of the doctors who protested that that was not right. Today, we too must be bold, because the challenges that we face are just as extreme. We must not be afraid to tell the truth to those who disagree.
Friends on this side of the House tell me to appease Labour voters in industrial towns: the former miners, the factory workers, those who feel that they have been left behind. I say that we must not patronise them with cowardice. Let us tell them the truth. Let us tell them, “You were sold a lie. Parts of the media used your fears to sell papers and boost viewing figures. Nigel Farage and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) exploited the same prejudice to win votes. Shame on them. Immigrants have not taken your jobs; our schools and colleges failed to give you skills.
Hospitals are crumbling not because of health tourists, but because of decades of austerity that ground them down to the bone. People cannot afford a house because both parties failed to build, not because Mohammed down the road moved in. Wealth was hoarded in London when it should have been shared across the country.
Blame us; blame Westminster: do not blame Brussels for our own country’s mistakes. And do not be angry at us for telling you the truth; be angry at the chancers who sold you a lie. As Martin Luther King said long ago:
“There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”
So just as I speak plainly to the Government this time around, let me speak to the Opposition about some home truths. There is no left-wing justification for Brexit. Ditching workers’ rights and social protections and ending environmental co-operation is not progressive. This is a project about neoliberal deregulation; it is Thatcherism on steroids, pushed by her modern-day disciples. Leaving the EU will not free us from the injustices of global capitalism; it will make us subordinate to Trump’s US.
Socialism confined to one country will not work. Whether we like it or not, the world we live in is global. We can fix the rigged system only if we co-operate across border lines. The party of Keir Hardie has always been international. We must not let down our young supporters by failing to stand with them on the biggest issue of our lives.
If we remain in the EU we can reform it from the top table: share the load of mass migration, address the excesses of the bureaucracy and fix inequalities between creditor and debtor states. We can recharge the economy. We can refuel the NHS. We can build the houses we need after years of hurt. Hope is what we need: remain in the EU; give Britain a second opportunity to decide.
i think in any case the validity of the referendum is moot given that implicitly both parliament and gov accepted the result; if we want to play the "not valid" card we kind of have to explain why it was accepted as valid for so long without appropriate constitutional recourse.
my view is that labour should be, as you say, coming out for remain but structured as a coherent vision that emphasises:
1) the incredible power that being in the eu has granted the uk, and the insanely good deal we already had (you could almost pitch this as "ha-ha! we already fooled those FOOLISH EUROPEANS" if you really felt like it)
2) the direction of travel of the eu being mostly good and the uk being a vital part of ensuring that good direction of travel (plus the fact that we have a ridiculous ability to opt out of literally anything built into our membership because specialflower.jpg, so theres zero risk of further loss of powers unless we want it)
3) the eu being both a means and an example of the kind of benign internationalism and cooperation that the labour party and most uk citizens intuitively think is good
4) our contribution to the eu being both increasingly sensibly used (CAP shrinking, etc) and also extremely small relative to our other spending (£13bn versus say £150bn on pensions)
5) valid criticisms of the eu have been hijacked by far-right social conservatives who are suggesting a remedy that not only fails to address those criticisms but ignores the very real methods by which we can fix those problems from within the eu
i always felt the negative framing that has tended to dominate - we should stay in the eu or else - is very easily countered by bullshit merchants who can just say everything will be better when we leave for unspecified reasons. a case that emphasises uk agency and power within the eu as well as the idea that the uk staying in europe both strengthens our and europes ability to defend both our and their interests is something you dont hear get put forward much!
EDIT: the other problem i have with attacking the 2016 ref on those grounds is that there is a very deeply-ingrained set of ideas in the right wing media about why those criticisms shouldnt be taken seriously; they just say "who cares if leave overspent, remain had gov spending on its side so the totals were small, and these were already looked into and found to be not that serious, and who cares about conspiracy theory stuff about steve bannon" or whatever. i havent seen such a strong already-constructed set of rejections for a positive "we are pretty powerful in the eu" case already because that requires more knowledge about how the eu works and what the uk has done in the past, which is mostly lacking, and i think can be constructed so it taps into the same "POWERFUL BRITANE" sense that a lot of the leave wto argument people are pushing
You should be Prime Minister and Bog should be speaker
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
There needs to be more speechifying like that from other MPs who have the minerals to do so.
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
A leading Brexiter MP is planning to publish a blueprint explaining how Theresa May should employ tough negotiating tactics with the European Union.
...
[Former Brexit minister Steve] Baker, a leading figure in the backbench European Research Group (ERG), said he is drawing up specific suggestions to force the EU to come to the table. “I’m very clear what should be done. I’m clear that we can write down the right way forward and I am as confident as I can be that the right plan could rescue the negotiations for the country, the government, the Conservative party and the EU. Of course, in the usual way we will make constructive suggestions for the right way forward,” he said.
Baker declined to offer further details on his plans.
Posts
Didn't most Labour seats vote for Brexit though?
Most Labour voters voted to Remain if they voted, however
I dunno if that even matters at this point. When the government's taking one clear side in the most significant and divisive political debate of a generation, maybe the opposition should actually consider opposing.
However, there's nothing stopping Labour from telling the truth about Brexit: that it's a terrible idea and it should be stopped, legitimately, via another referendum. Instead, they're also saying it's a good idea. Quite possibly they'll lose votes, but I'm betting they'd pick up an awful lot from people who thought they were the best chance of stopping Brexit. At the moment they're losing badly in the polls and I can't be the only person who isn't going to vote for them any more precisely because of their stance over Brexit.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This was great to listen to; the exchange is in the video embedded in this tweet:
(BBCPolitics is, uh, well, BBC's twitter account for covering political goings on)
Which is really unacceptable as it means that we're not reforming to avoid these problems in the future.
I feel like this might backfire on them
It provides a focus for the cross party consensus that was demonstrated with the Yvette Cooper amendment the other day. Bercow has shown a clear preference for selecting amendments with broad, cross party support.
It could just be the seed around which an actual course of action could crystallise, and it being that or no deal might just be enough to bring waverers on board.
Essentially May has taken her biggest coercive tool (the fact that legislation defaults to leaving with no deal) and handed it to whichever group can build enough support around a credible course of action to get their amendment selected as the single permitted amendment.
If this does not contradict "they won democratically and we should respect that", I don't know what will.
Also, they didn't just cheat and lie, they got help from Russia and murdered pro-remain politicians.
You left out the bit where they also tweaked poll results to profit off of currency movements. Which is small potatoes relative to the murder thing, but helps to show just how selfishly dickish they all are.
You're conflating a right-wing nutjob who murdered an MP with everyone on the Leave side. I would agree that the Leave rhetoric inflamed feelings and contributed to her death but I think implying one whole side ('they') murdered Jo Cox is pushing it.
I'd agree that there's a case for claiming the referendum isn't entirely valid, but Labour isn't making it, and before setting it aside they'd have to convince people it is invalid, which is something they're manifestly not interested in doing.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Quiet Bogart.
You're sounding pragmatic.
Almost.....blairite
GET HIM
We're certainly not advocating violence towards Bogart (get him), but people have a right to make their feelings known without fear of harm or abuse, and it's not productive for people to point out that non-insane options exist but are being ignored by everyone in a position to take them.
So we're clearly not saying get him (get him), but people (get him) are free to make their own choices (get him).
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
my view is that labour should be, as you say, coming out for remain but structured as a coherent vision that emphasises:
1) the incredible power that being in the eu has granted the uk, and the insanely good deal we already had (you could almost pitch this as "ha-ha! we already fooled those FOOLISH EUROPEANS" if you really felt like it)
2) the direction of travel of the eu being mostly good and the uk being a vital part of ensuring that good direction of travel (plus the fact that we have a ridiculous ability to opt out of literally anything built into our membership because specialflower.jpg, so theres zero risk of further loss of powers unless we want it)
3) the eu being both a means and an example of the kind of benign internationalism and cooperation that the labour party and most uk citizens intuitively think is good
4) our contribution to the eu being both increasingly sensibly used (CAP shrinking, etc) and also extremely small relative to our other spending (£13bn versus say £150bn on pensions)
5) valid criticisms of the eu have been hijacked by far-right social conservatives who are suggesting a remedy that not only fails to address those criticisms but ignores the very real methods by which we can fix those problems from within the eu
i always felt the negative framing that has tended to dominate - we should stay in the eu or else - is very easily countered by bullshit merchants who can just say everything will be better when we leave for unspecified reasons. a case that emphasises uk agency and power within the eu as well as the idea that the uk staying in europe both strengthens our and europes ability to defend both our and their interests is something you dont hear get put forward much!
EDIT: the other problem i have with attacking the 2016 ref on those grounds is that there is a very deeply-ingrained set of ideas in the right wing media about why those criticisms shouldnt be taken seriously; they just say "who cares if leave overspent, remain had gov spending on its side so the totals were small, and these were already looked into and found to be not that serious, and who cares about conspiracy theory stuff about steve bannon" or whatever. i havent seen such a strong already-constructed set of rejections for a positive "we are pretty powerful in the eu" case already because that requires more knowledge about how the eu works and what the uk has done in the past, which is mostly lacking, and i think can be constructed so it taps into the same "POWERFUL BRITANE" sense that a lot of the leave wto argument people are pushing
That argument would probably help to change some minds.
political editor of the sun
if this is remotely accurate....
The question is how many of those 433 are 'no deal will be awesome' types.
about 50-70 as far as i know. there is an interesting question of how many conservative mps would split for no deal in event of may deal falling through, but i suspect it would not be that many
The fun here is that if the 'moderate' (as far as any plan to leave the EU can be described as such) plan is shot down that's going to leave either the two more radical plans (no-deal or no-brexit), or just punting and going for a general election or another referendum. I'm assuming they'll also ask for, and get, an extension if one of the punting options is chosen. I don't have huge amounts of faith that the MPs won't suddenly get the stupids and decide that Brexit means Brexit, no matter how painful.
2016-2018 have really lowered my opinions of everything.
yes the current conservative party are an astonishingly mediocre bunch, far more so than was the case 30 years ago. you can see this both at the ministerial level and the planning/policy/spad level
most of it slid by because nobody cared about their total failure to align eg spending policy to other policy and so on, but the moment something that required actual skill turned up they demonstrated a fairly comprehensive level of shallowness
EDIT: if you consider their only major policies - universal credit and cutting the deficit - they botched uc so hard and in such a basic way that the minister in question resigned, and the degree of cynicism displayed by both the targets of spending reductions and the failure to meet their own targets + incredibly slow recovery due to simultaneous fiscal and monetary contraction due to eg minimum reserve requirement changes
they are ABSURDLY useless
from the guardian live brexit blog
fairly strong stuff for the japanese pm to say in public...
Yeah I dont think we'll need to reainimate Alan Turing to crack the oh-so-subtly encrypted message there.
I can't imagine Abe is very happy with our bullshit messing with all these Japanese investments... Must we burn bridges and alienate partners because of stupid?
*silently gestures at everything*
Steam | XBL
You should be Prime Minister and Bog should be speaker
Steam: adamjnet
Steam | XBL
Ex-Brexit minister to put pressure on May with new deal proposal
Of course he did.
Steam | XBL
David Lammy & Mhairi Black: Hold our pints.
Lammy 4 PM
I'd take Limmy at this stage, he's at least introspective enough
At this stage I’d take *Lemmy*, and he has obvious disadvantages.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog