You think wrong.

Could you edit the url tags out of your link please? And btw, the Times is behind a paywall, so not a good source to link to anyway.

ETA - there's nothing in what little I can read of the article that justifies the headline.

What did he actually say?

To me that sounds like the words of a yard bully

Very much so.

To me it sounds like the words of a news worker.

To me it sounds like the words of a headline writer at The Times.

Also, Juncker could hardly say anything to the contrary. If he said "If the UK leaves the EU, it will be no problem and there will be still be a great deal on offer for them afterwards" he'd nearly be giving the British public the green light to vote for Brexit.

Perhaps the Eu are aware that the Prime Minister (Cameron) publicly stated that Article 50 would be triggered (by Prime Minister David Cameron) on the 28th of June 2016 in the event of a Brexit. And that all of us voted on that basis.

The delay and the uncertainty may harm the Eu.....not just the UK. If they are angry (and that anger has consequences)......that is hardly a surprise.

Why, it's what Remainers have been saying is the only option since the Referendum.

Either there is a Brexit that involves no agreements with the EU - and no agreements with any country where the agreement is via the EU - or Brexit doesn't occur.

I can't see why Brexiters are making such a pig's ear of it, it's almost as if they hadn't thought of the consequences when whining on about Brexit.

Of course it would give them a mandate, they'd include the promise of Brexit in their manifesto with a big enough majority to overcome opposition from outside their own party whilst Tory dissenters to Brexit would need to adhere to the manifesto promise.

That's not what the other poster said, and that's not what I was contradicting.

What parties put in their manifestos still needs to go through Parliament.

Grow up.

Here, Nodger have a look at this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA

Jeezus wept!

Saw it this morning, only just finished laughing.

Edit: There's another DP edition with McGrory on from April. Coburn gives him a little mauling (yep, Coburn gave it to him)... regarding the Government's £9 million leaflet he was defending to the hilt.

Parliamentary democracy is a bugger, isn't it.

I have, that's why I don't vote for "another way" without having a clue what that might be and how we might be better off.

Apart from all of the stuff they put in their manifestos which they quietly forget about after the election.

Brexiters don't like it much, it seems!

I don't think that is the case, but I'm happy to be corrected. If we choose to set the import duty on cars to say 3% then within WTO rules that tarrif applies to all imported cars from all nations. The EU will quite happily sell us cars at a tarrif of 3% but will continue to set a tarrif of 10% (or whatever it happens to be) on cars they import from the UK.

Yes, so cars we import from the EU would be more expensive. And cars from Japan, Korea and China would be cheaper undercutting our own manufacturers, which is why we had a 10% tariff in the first place.

That's true but there are good guys like Tusk who are diplomatic in how they say things and there are wind up merchants like Junker who seem to rub everyone up the wrong way.

Go back and read my post you were resp[onding to. Did I say it would give the Tories a clearer passage through Parliament than they currently have or are you naive enough to think that when Corbyn says Labour won't oppose a Brexit Bill, he's guaranteed to be telling the truth.