He's the chap who stated he voted Remain back in June but who now says he voted Leave!

One in the same. Here is what his own lawyer said about him:


An interesting duo indeed.

No. But I do think - regardless of 'promises' this should be done properly. I don't think it should be solely for Mrs May and the three stooges to push through. EVERYONE should be considered in this.

I like her

Why "disgusting"? (Genuinely curious; not questioning the point)

Everyone is considered, we had a General Election and the electorate voted for the Tories in the full knowledge that we would have a referendum on the EU and in the full knowledge that the Tories would be the government after said referendum irrespective of the outcome. The government, and parliament, asked the electorate for a decision, that decision was given. It is not a case of May and the three stooges it is the government following the will of the people.

Thank you! Finally a Brexiter who actually admits it was advisory and not binding.

The "honouring" came from a complusive liar who didn't have the authority to say what he did, then ran away when he was found out.

I think Nick Clegg said repeatedly - and repeatedly, this decision from the people would be final - 'no going back.' I think what the went wrong is the result didn't go way he expected, so then he and Tim began all this muddying - 'the people voted for the direction but not the destination' nonsense.

Freedom of movement is discriminative against anyone who isn't European. It makes poorer EU nations more dependent on wealthier ones rather than trying to equalise the wealth amongst ALL EU nations. It exploits poorer EU citizens by allowing them to work via an agency at lower rates than the minimum wage of the country they are in stipulates. It allows squalid living conditions where you often find 30 young blokes living in one house. It does not prevent criminals entering countries even though there are supposed systems to do exactly this. It limits a member states sovereignty on immigration policy and is, in effect potentially very dangerous. 12 deaths in Germany is 12 deaths too many, and if the perpetrator was a "refugee" who could potentially travel freely across Europe in years to come, heaven help us against people like that.

Ah, I thought you meant generally (not just in the EU) - but that's a very fair point, thank you

In the eyes of millions of voters it most certainly was binding. To not honour it would be catastrophic for UK democracy.

So people really did vote with ignorance. Quite a worry.

And with FoM in the EU we cannot automatically exclude anyone who has a criminal record.

All of those abuses could and should have been cracked down on and stopped on by the enforcement of national laws. Freedom of movement is one of the foundations of a free and peaceful Europe and it has provided unity and mutual respect, free of prejudice and bigotry, except in the UK where as usual it is used, abused and vilified at the same time.

If the UK electorate think that freedom of movement is not for them then that seems like a reasonable democratic decision. I think the French are not too keen on it either.

I think you are confusing freedom of movement for EU citizens with mass migration from outside the eu.

As far as I'm aware, the French have little problem with freedom of movement.

Or maybe you are confusing freedom of movement with the Schengen Area? Either way, you appear confused.

I have no recollection of the stronger in Europe campaign contradicting the official government leaflet that put the government's advice to the electorate and stating that they would implement what was decided. It may have happened but seems to have been low key if it did.

why does her husband allow her to become the face of this? she's become the hate figure and her husband cowers in the corner allowing it to happen without doing anything about it

We are leaving the EU. Why do so many Brexit supporters assume that following a legal process as per the UK constitution is in any way going to prevent the government triggering A50.

Total paranoia. Tin foil hats all round.

No I was not I said if the UK electorate so decide that is a democratic decision. I also said the French are not too keen either and as it is raised specifically as an issue by some, who receive significant electoral support, then that seems like a reasonable assumption.

What do you want him to do, keep his little lady at home?

We don't live in Victorian times any more, he doesn't "allow" his wife do anything, she is her own person.

You seem to be having a little difficulty. I said the Official Remain campaign did not contradict the stated official government intent to act on the decision made by the electorate. That means that the electorate were not ignorant (as indicated) but were misled by both the Government and the official Stronger in Europe campaign.

What did the official government leaflet state regarding the legal status of the referendum? I've lost my copy of the leaflet so maybe you can help me?

But did the leaflet was not a legal document it did not state how we would leave the eu fact is it could not as the ref was not legally binding. And its just like party Manifesto are not legally binding.

the way he doesnt stand up for his wife who gets attacked all the time. he also doesnt put himself forward to be interviewed either despite him being just as involved as she is. same goes for the pimlico plumber boss, they're allowing her to get all the hate. some men they are