Oh, I see, the new Brexit date is June 14th unless there's a full moon that day, in which case the new date will be Tuesday of some week yet to be determined. However, if Tuesday of that week falls between Monday and Wednesday, the new Brexit date with be October 26, 1840.

UNLESS...

If the week of October 26, 1840 contains a Tuesday which falls between a Monday and a Wednesday, the Brexit date will then be the color of the sky on the Saturday BEFORE the Tuesday which falls between a Monday and a Wednesday in the week of October 26, 1840.


I never realized until now that Europe's main export was low-grade manure.

Somewhere in the infinitely vast Universe is, was or shall be a civilization that knows how to get shit done. When someone tries to obscure the truth, they are dropped into a live volcano. Somewhere, some civilization knows how to get things done and to not just cut through, but to utterly destroy the truth-obscuring bullshit.

They should leave on July 4.

...of LAST YEAR

How does anyone ever get anything done in this world? Gigantic roadblocks, everywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Oh, I see, the new Brexit date is June 14th unless there's a full moon that day, in which case the new date will be Tuesday of some week yet to be determined. However, if Tuesday of that week falls between Monday and Wednesday, the new Brexit date with be October 26, 1840.

UNLESS...

If the week of October 26, 1840 contains a Tuesday which falls between a Monday and a Wednesday, the Brexit date will then be the color of the sky on the Saturday BEFORE the Tuesday which falls between a Monday and a Wednesday in the week of October 26, 1840.


I never realized until now that Europe's main export was low-grade manure.

Somewhere in the infinitely vast Universe is, was or shall be a civilization that knows how to get shit done. When someone tries to obscure the truth, they are dropped into a live volcano. Somewhere, some civilization knows how to get things done and to not just cut through, but to utterly destroy the truth-obscuring bullshit.

Yup, just about sums it up right there. Needless to say, a SHEDLOAD of us here are totally pissed off with the total freakin' ineptitude of the so-called government, who couldn't arrange a piss-up in a brewery.

There WAS a referendum.

The population DID decide to leave.

So just DO it!!

The UK is presently paying THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION POUNDS EVERY DAY into the EU for almost no return.

That MUST stop.

Now.

May wants yet another "meaningful vote"
Because, I guess the last two weren't meaningful enough!



Update (9:20 am ET): A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street has confirmed that the prime minister won't call for another meaningful vote on her Brexit plan unless she can win the vote (which of course doesn't look likely), and that the government won't push for a series of indicative votes until after that issue has been decided.

However, even with May holding out hope that her deal might be passed after the latest attempt to push her out fizzled over the weekend, it doesn't look like she'll manage to win the votes she would need to finally pass her withdrawal agreement, with the DUP saying Monday that they wouldn't support the deal if it is brought for a third vote. Asked what they believed might happen, a DUP official told BBG that May has 'no chance' of getting her deal through, and that a no-deal Brexit remained the most likely outcome (despite MPs rejecting it during an indicative vote earlier this month).

The pound has reversed an earlier bounce on the latest batch of headlines.

Meanwhile, the EU said Monday that it's members are prepared for the UK to exit without a deal, and that hundreds of customs specialists have been recruited to make sure any disruptions in the flow of goods doesn't last more than a few days. One EU official added that the bloc wouldn't enter into "mini-deals" to make no-deal more palatable.

Cabinet sources have told the FT that May would whip votes against the Letwin amendment, which would call for a series of indicative votes on alternatives to May's deal.

Yet, in a sign that exhaustion with the interminable Brexit nightmare is swiftly setting in, the Prime Minister has reportedly decided to offer the group, which includes Boris Johnson (who penned a weepy Telegraph op-ed lambasting May and calling for the PM to step down), Jacob Rees-Mogg, Iain Duncan-Smith, Steve Baker, David Davis (the former Brexit Secretary) and others, a marginally attractive deal: Back MV3 - that is, a third meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement (remember, the last two were defeated by historic margins) - and May will commit to resigning.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/f...AM.png?itok=cGc2ZATT

Politicians invented the clusterfuck and strive each day to make it more fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Politicians invented the clusterfuck and strive each day to make it more fucked.

And are succeeding with that, anyway.

This may clear things up. Or maybe not.

^
Nailed it.

So no Brexit.

A brutal month for brexit

March has seen the unraveling of the Brexit process and the ruin of Theresa May.
When Harold Macmillan became Britain’s prime minister, or so the story goes, a young reporter asked what would decide his government’s course. Macmillan’s reply? “Events, dear boy, events!” But Theresa May’s government will not be remembered for decisive events. Rather it will be remembered for a series of failures that led to the most catastrophic non-event in recent British history — Brexit.

As you know, Britain was scheduled to leave the European Union on March 29. The country voted to leave in a 2016 referendum. March 29 was supposed to be a decisive, historic event. Ever since Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was triggered two years ago, the main political players all committed to it. And yet cometh the hour, cometh no Brexit. . . .

More at the link

I believe that in the flow chart above, we are now at the "May mandated to return to Brussels to ask for longer extension" box halfway down on the center left. Though I don't know how we arrived there, as no consensus has emerged in Parliament and May wasn't mandated anything. Rather she has been seeking an agreement with the Labour opposition, possibly including a customs union with the EU; this being the closest the House came to decide for as an alternative to the current deal, missing by just three votes.

Of course games continue to be played. Many Tory hardline Brexiteers actually voted for May's deal in the last round once she said she would step down after a solution had been found; Labour has charged that her proposal to them actually didn't include much new. I think either is an indication of folks who would happily trade their professed political convictions for a chance to rule whatever is left of the country in the end. A request by May for an extension to 30 June was already rejected once by the EU, which wants to protect the integrity of the late-May European Parliament elections.

There is a German-led camp in the EU open to new extensions, and EU President Donald Tusk just offered a "flextension" model with no ever-new deadlines. Another camp led by France however wants no further delays, and members need to agree unanimously on such. I tend to agree with the French camp, myself; extending beyond the elections, even if it's before the new EP will be seated in July, is opening up the road to no end of problems. Just get it over with, already.

quote:

Brexit: UK asks EU for further extension until 30 June

5 April 2019

Theresa May has written to the European Union to request a further delay to Brexit until 30 June.

The UK is currently due to leave the EU on 12 April and, as yet, no withdrawal deal has been approved by MPs.

The government has been in talks with the Labour Party to try and find a compromise to put to the Commons.

But shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the Tory negotiating team had offered no changes to Mrs May's original deal.

The PM said from the outset she wanted to keep her withdrawal agreement as part of any plan, but was willing to discuss the UK's future relationship with the EU - addressed in the deal's political declaration.

Sir Keir said the government was "not countenancing any change to the actual wording of the political declaration", adding: "Compromise requires change."

The prime minister has proposed that if UK MPs approve a deal in time, the UK should be able to leave before European Parliamentary elections on 23 May.

But she said the UK would prepare to field candidates in those elections in case no agreement is reached.

It is up to the EU whether to grant an extension to Article 50, the legal process through which the UK is leaving the EU, after MPs repeatedly rejected the withdrawal agreement reached between the UK and the bloc.

'Flexible extension'

The BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler has been told by a senior EU source that European Council President Donald Tusk will propose a 12-month "flexible" extension to Brexit, with the option of cutting it short, if the UK Parliament ratifies a deal.

But French President Emmanuel Macron's office said on Friday that it was "premature" to consider another delay while French diplomatic sources described Mr Tusk's suggestion as a "clumsy test balloon".

The prime minister wrote to Mr Tusk to request the extension ahead of an EU summit on 10 April, where EU leaders would have to unanimously agree on any plan to delay the UK's departure.

[...]

In her letter, the prime minister says she would continue to seek the "rapid approval" of the withdrawal agreement and a "shared vision" for the future relationship between the UK and EU.

She said if cross-party talks with the Labour Party could not establish "a single unified approach" in the UK Parliament - MPs would be asked to vote on a series of Brexit options instead which the government "stands ready to abide by", if Labour commits to doing the same.

The UK proposes an extension to the process until 30 June, she wrote, and "accepts the European Council's view that if the United Kingdom were still a member state of the European Union on 23 May 2019, it would be under a legal obligation to hold the elections".

To this end, she says the UK is "undertaking the lawful and responsible preparations for this contingency".

But she suggests the UK should be able to leave earlier, if the UK Parliament approves a withdrawal deal before then, and cancel preparations for the European Parliamentary elections.

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, at a meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels, said any extension granted should be the last and final offer, to maintain the EU's credibility.

[...]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47825841

I've read all the posts here and the only thing I have accomplished is to give myself a headache, a really bad one.

Good grief.

Step over this line....no really....step over THIS line.... o wait I mean THIS line....ok ok.....THIS line....

^^ Yep...

Welcome to the Hotel Europe...

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
Relax' said the night man,
We are programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like,
But you can never leave!

quote:

Excellent analysis by John “I told you so!” O’Sullivan at National Review:

More from O’Sullivan:

If Brexit Fails, So Does Britain
By John O'Sullivan

April 6, 2019

Charles Moore today ends his weekly Telegraph column, which has become required reading for both supporters and opponents of Brexit, with a gloomy forecast that the only way of saving Brexit from its betrayal by a Tory prime minister and government is her replacement by a new leader who then reforms the Tory party along lines that would allow local Tory associations to deselect Remain MPs and replace them with Leavers. His final paragraph reads:

It does not sound very likely, does it? The only reason to think that it might happen is the prospect of the alternative, which is annihilation.

Does “annihilation” sound a trifle over-dramatic? Well, I suspect Moore intends that it should have a shock effect on his readers — a metaphorical shaking of the shoulders to make them realize what’s at stake. What is at stake is not the physical annihilation of the Brits but the absorption of their self-governing democracy into an undemocratic European empire called the European Union. And that prospect justifies the gloomiest of forecasts.

Admittedly, Brexit (or rather, the deceitful betrayal of Brexit by a Remainer government) is a many-sided catastrophe. My NR colleagues, notably Madeleine Kearns (to whose plangent op-eds set to music I would happily listen if she would sing them as beautifully as she sang “The Star-Spangled Banner” at the NRI Ideas Summit last week), have discussed almost all of them with a cousinly sympathy and regret. I hope myself to return next week with a full symphonic treatment of the tragedy. But here let me focus on two aspects of the Brexit story that won’t be transformed or rendered irrelevant by events in the next few days and that illustrate a larger political evolution in Europe and beyond.

The first is that because a large minority of Tory MPs have consistently opposed May’s No Brexit Deal, she this week opened talks with Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn in the hope of winning enough Labour support to get it through on the fourth attempt. As I write, the usual leaks suggest that these talks have broken down. But that is far from certain. It looks a little like a feint to soothe Tory activists so that they won’t give visiting MPs too brutal a time over the weekend. And later statements leave open the possibility that talks will resume on Monday.

Even so, most commentary has treated this initiative as a political blunder by May because it elevates Corbyn and makes it far harder for the Tories to denounce him as the man with a knife between his teeth, a Marxist fanatic and terrorist sympathizer who threatens the modest livelihoods of Middle Britain with his schemes to imitate Venezuela. That’s a significant case of unilateral rhetorical disarmament by the Tories, and it’s all the more remarkable because, unlike most such extreme political rhetoric, these accusations are perfectly valid. This opening to the Left on and against Brexit, therefore, shows the extraordinary lengths to which the Tory Remainers are prepared to go to keep Britain either in the EU or controlled by it.

There may be a greater significance in this initiative, moreover. Look at what is happening throughout Europe, where the dominance of establishment parties of Left and Right committed to ever-closer Euro-integration is threatened by the rise of “nationalist” or “populist” parties. The most shining example is in the European Parliament itself, where the center-left socialists and the center-right Christian Democrats have formed a de facto coalition to ensure that all the power remains in their joint hands. It’s common knowledge that if the European elections in May go well for the “extremes” (i.e., all other parties), this duopoly will entrench its dominance by admitting the Liberal bloc (which shares its enthusiasm for centralizing power in Brussels) into its charmed circle.

And this new kind of oligopolistic politics is not confined to EU institutions. Several national parliaments in Europe are now dominated by “grand coalitions” formed not to handle a national emergency but as a semi-permanent tactic to resist election results that have returned new outsider parties with Euro-sceptic tendencies. The most extreme case is that of Sweden, where the mainstream parties have forged an agreement that has kept the failing Social Democrats in office in order to keep the Swedish Democrats permanently out (despite their 25 per cent in the popular vote)/ But it’s the same in Germany, Holland, France (electorally), Spain, and elsewhere. My John Howard lecture in Australia two years ago was mainly about the beginnings of this development. And I returned to the consequences of it recently in the Australian magazine Quadrant here:

It creates a de facto Centre Party, composed of the mainstream parties of Left and Right. These parties still compete electorally under their original names, but they co-operate on almost all major issues in government afterwards. This permanent coalition enjoys the support of the main cultural, media and business elites. It expects to be in power forever — though it is starting to have doubts.

Its second feature is that it is a politics of inevitability. It believes in “More Europe” — the rock on which it is founded — and it dismisses policies that conflict with this strategic aim. But this “inevitabilism” infects its understanding of other major issues too — everything from mass migration to the euro.

Third, it practises an electoral strategy of exclusion. And why not? If all clever and responsible people support the coalition, it is unthinkable that the rag-bag of populists, nationalists, fanatics and “extremists” on the other side should ever come to power.

And if that ever happens accidentally, they must be restrained by rules and institutions operated by liberal technocrats. Such tactics, however, exclude not only parties but also the millions of voters who support them. It reduces the value of democracy and protects the failing policies of the centrist technocracy.

It’s easy to see this kind of politics emerging in Britain through May’s evisceration of Brexit. The mystery is why. The answer can’t be that this new political structure has produced either political or economic success. The EU has had a relatively low rate of growth for about 30 years compared to the U.S., Asia, and the non-EU countries in Europe. Its greatest achievements are not establishing peace in Europe — that was done by the U.S. and NATO — but establishing the euro without the fiscal institutions to make it workable, to introduce the abolition of internal EU borders without firming up the external borders to make Schengen workable, and to spend 40 percent of the EU budget on an agricultural policy that intentionally keeps food prices high. All of these disasters, incidentally, were the result of policies entirely under the remit of the “centrist technocracy.” Not one was the product of dangerous populist politics.

What then explains the determination of May, the Remainer Tories, Blairite and moderate MPs, the media, most of Britain’s great cultural institutions, and all in all “the establishment” to halt and reverse Brexit at all costs and by any political means, however constitutionally dubious? What can account for cabinet ministers and ambitious junior ministers blithely kicking over the despatch box on which both the constitution and their own ambitions rest?

That was the question I tried to answer recently in the Washington Examiner here. The answer I gave was that hard-line Remainers had switched consciously to a European political identity over a British one. They saw themselves as the vanguard of a new European patriotism that has yet to spread deeply into any one country, Britain least of all, but which has taken root in their political and bureaucratic classes. There might be many reasons for this transfer of allegiance, some trivial, some deeply thought out, but the end result is that many Remainers, especially those in high political positions, devote to Europe the emotions that most people reserve for their native land. Orwell described this kind of political emotion as “transferred nationalism,” to which he thought intellectuals were especially susceptible. In his essay “Notes on Nationalism,” he delivered this significant warning against it:

But for an intellectual, transference has an important function which I have already mentioned shortly in connection with Chesterton. It makes it possible for him to be much more nationalistic — more vulgar, more silly, more malignant, more dishonest — than he could ever be on behalf of his native country, or any unit of which he had real knowledge.

But the Remainers in the British debate have an extremely frustrating handicap. They cannot say what they feel and believe openly. Though both Leavers and Remainers are actuated by their devotion to preserving either British or European sovereignty, only the Leavers can state that loyalty openly. Remainers can scarcely proclaim themselves hostile to British independence; their earlier advocacy of “pooled sovereignty” was easily shown to be a verbal self-contradiction; they have given up on proclaiming the positive value of EU membership because the current state of Europe makes that laughable; and the hostility and contempt towards Britain expressed by some European leaders has not helped their cause at all.

So they have to take refuge in running down Britain as weak, powerless, second-rate, etc., etc., etc.; in mocking Leavers as old, ignorant, uneducated, xenophobic, racist, etc., etc., etc.; in deceptive advertising of May’s deal as “the Brexit you voted for”; and in increasingly desperate attempts to change the parliamentary and constitutional rules to force through a Potemkin Brexit that fails to deceive anyone and enrages almost everyone.

That’s where we stand at the end of another “historic” week in British politics. If Charles Moore is gloomily correct, we are looking at the likely triumph of a kind of politics that uses deceitful methods to bring about the incorporation of the United Kingdom under the sovereignty of an emerging imperial power.

I wish I could think of a name for that.

https://www.nationalreview.com...ritish-independence/

Tory Support Splinters, Nigel Farage's Brexit Party Nearly Even In Polls

Theresa May, the worst negotiator in history, splintered the Tories so badly the Brexit Party is nearly even in polls.

Farage Forms New Party

The Guardian reports Tories Hit by New Defections and Slump in Opinion Polls as Party Divide Widens.

The bitter fallout from Brexit is threatening to break the Tory party apart, as a Europhile former cabinet minister Stephen Dorrell on Sunday announces he is defecting to the independent MPs’ group Change UK, and a new opinion poll shows Conservative support plummeting to a five-year low as anti-EU parties surge.

The latest defections come as a new Opinium poll for the Observer shows a dramatic fall in Tory support in the past two weeks and a surge for anti-EU parties. The Conservatives have fallen by six percentage points to 29% compared to a fortnight ago. It is their worst position since December 2014. Labour is up one point on 36% while Ukip is up two points on 11%.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...ty-nearly-even-polls

Is the Tory confusion going to let Labor take control? And what would that do to Brexit?

Typical EU 'democracy'.... Keep voting until you get the 'right' answer.


May Ready To Bring Back Hated Brexit Plan For Unprecedented 4th Vote

Though the pound's weakness against the dollar in the euro on Tuesday has been widely interpreted as a knock-on effect of the dollar's strength, traders could be forgiven for assuming otherwise. Because after a brief Easter recess, Parliament is back in session, and Brexit-related news is back in the headlines.

Little has happened since Theresa May struck an 11th-hour agreement with the EU for a six-month extension of Article 50. Talks with Labour to find an alternative to May's Brexit deal (talks that May clearly disdains) appear unlikely to succeed. Though the Tory and Labour delegations resumed talks on Tuesday, whispers suggest the talks could fall apart in the coming days.

Whatever happens with the talks is largely irrelevant anyway, since the EU has made it clear that the withdrawal agreement is the only deal that it would accept. That deal has already been rejected three times by Parliament, albeit by slightly more favorable margins in each successive vote, though as long as the Irish Backstop, the big sticking point in the deal, remains, it's unlikely that May will be able to win over enough Brexiteers to push the deal through.

With few viable alternatives (apart from another can kick or, failing that, a second referendum), the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, surprising absolutely no one, that May is already preparing to bring the text of her withdrawal agreement back for a fourth vote.

Just like the third vote, May will need to embrace some procedural maneuvers to satisfy Speaker Bercow's condition that the deal must be "substantially different" than prior votes if May wants to bring it back. This time, the withdrawal agreement will come packaged in a more far-reaching withdrawal agreement bill.

And a vote could come as soon as next week.

Downing Street sources said a fourth vote on May's bill could be the last and best hope to avert Britain's participation in the upcoming EU Parliamentary elections, something May had desperately sought to avoid.

If the bill is defeated, which is extremely likely, May would be prohibited from bringing it back for another vote until a new session of parliament begins. That wouldn't happen until later this year, though we imagine May will find some kind of procedural loophole to keep bringing her deal back.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...precedented-4th-vote

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
I believe that in the flow chart above, we are now at the "May mandated to return to Brussels to ask for longer extension" box halfway down on the center left. Though I don't know how we arrived there, as no consensus has emerged in Parliament and May wasn't mandated anything.

A poster on another board has in fact tried keeping track.



Here's the evolution of the flow charts at the original source.

Meanwhile, the Scottish National Party aims for another independence referendum.

quote:

Sturgeon: Brexit should trigger Scottish independence vote by 2021

Scotland’s first minister says ‘independent nations’ wield more power in EU than Scotland does within the UK.

By Charlie Cooper | 4/24/19, 3:59 PM CET | Updated 4/24/19, 4:26 PM CET

Scotland should hold a referendum on independence before 2021 if the U.K. leaves the EU, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said.

Announcing plans for legislation setting the rules of a second independence vote, Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament that the Brexit process had revealed "the limits of Scotland's influence within the U.K." and strengthened the case for splitting from the union.

“A choice between Brexit and a future for Scotland as an independent European nation should be offered in the lifetime of this parliament," the Scottish National Party leader said. "If Scotland is taken out of the EU, a referendum within that timescale must be open to us. That would be our route to avoiding the worst of the damage that Brexit would do.”

The current Scottish Parliament term ends in May 2021.

Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) would by the end of 2019 vote on legislation paving the way for a vote, Sturgeon said. But an imminent constitutional clash with Theresa May's Westminster government will be avoided as a transfer of powers — required to hold the referendum — would not be needed at this legislative stage.

May refused in 2017 to grant Sturgeon's previous application for a legally-binding independence vote, known as a Section 30 request, and the prime minister's spokesperson said this week that position had not changed.

In her statement, Sturgeon told members of the Scottish Parliament that she believed the U.K. position would "prove to be unsustainable" but that moving ahead with the preparatory legislation before a formal Section 30 request would avoid "a stand-off with a U.K. government that may soon be out office.”

The SNP-led government in Scotland stepped up calls for a second independence referendum within hours of the U.K. voting to leave the EU in June 2016. After an initial Section 30 request in March 2017 was rejected, Sturgeon put plans for a referendum on hold following the June 2017 U.K. general election, saying that the issue would be revived and the timetable set out when the Brexit outcome was clearer.

However, with the initial March 2019 date for the U.K.'s departure having come and gone, and doubt cast over the Brexit process by a string of delays — the latest potentially until October — Sturgeon said the time had come to "safeguard Scotland's interests."

The SNP backs a second referendum on EU membership and Sturgeon added that efforts to prevent Brexit altogether would continue. But if the U.K. does leave, she said that Scotland, which voted 62 percent in favor of Remain in the June 2016 referendum, must have the chance to break away and stay within the EU.

[...]

https://www.politico.eu/articl...ndence-vote-by-2021/

‘I Wish We Had Trump’: Britons Angry Over Lack Of Brexit Plan

In 2016, voters in the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Now, nearly three years later, citizens are still waiting for a plan from their government.

The break was formally set to happen on March 29, but now, a month later, there is still no deal, and lawmakers are discussing a second referendum.

Robert Perry told the Los Angeles Times’ special correspondent in London that he would lose votes in the Conservative Party if they can’t deliver on Brexit, and wishes U.S. President Donald Trump was leading Great Britain.

“The country has been shafted,” Perry said. “If we had Trump, he would have said: ‘Take it or leave it.’ I wish we had Trump right now.”

Perry further told the outlet that he thinks Brexit will just keep getting delayed and said those who voted to remain have been “bullying” those who voted to leave the EU who think Brexiters are dumb.

Seventy-six-year-old Tony Gilligan told the Times that he voted for “Brexit,” but the way the vote has been handled “have made this look like a John Cleese comedy show.”

“We have always run ourselves. We dictate, we don’t get dictated to,” Gilligan told the Times. “It’s made us a laughingstock when we were ‘Great Britain.’”

Gilligan told the outlet that he blames “the idiots in Parliament that are arguing over everything instead of running our country like they’re supposed to be.” Still angry, he added: “I can’t believe that a bunch of so-called adults who are supposedly running Great Britain have made this look like a John Cleese comedy show.”
Further, Gilligan said he thinks Britain should have left the European Union on March 29 even without a deal, and called the notion of a second referendum “a slap in the face for the people — they have already voted.”

He asked when the referendums would stop, “best of three? Five?”

A Hornchurch elected official told the Times street protests may be coming.

“We need to turn on the establishment and in the short term, have some sort of civil disobedience,” said Councilman Graham Williamson.

Williamson also said he wanted to see a new form of government in the country, using Switzerland as a model.

“I think we need proportional representation, the Swiss model of government or some form of it,” he told the Times.

Joann Peake, 78, told the Times she is “embarrassed on behalf of our country.” The local bartender said the lack of a Brexit deal makes Britons “look like idiots.”

“We are allowing another country to tell us how to conduct our life when this isn’t what it should all be about. People went to war twice so we could have freedom of speech,” she said.

Another common thread among those interviewed by the Times is disagreement with current immigration policy. Peake said migrants using Britain’s welfare and healthcare systems has been “impacting on our life.” She said “the National Health Service is in dire straits because there are too many people, and too many of them not paying into the system.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news...ck-brexit-ashe-schow