The Brexit Party

Blackleaf
#1
Nigel Farage has endorsed a brand new pro-Brexit political party and warned Theresa May he will 'step back into the fray' if exit day is delayed from March 29.

The ex-Ukip leader warned of 'betrayal' of the Leave vote from 2016 and stepped up his vow to return to front line politics to defend it.

Nigel Farage backs new BREXIT PARTY and warns Theresa May he will 'step back into the fray' to defend Leave vote if exit is delayed


Nigel Farage has vowed to defend Leave if Brexit day is delayed from March 29

He has endorsed The Brexit Party, a new party set up by an ex-Ukip politician

Farage says he will 'step back into the fray' if he has to defend the Brexit vote

But he left Ukip over the appointment of Tommy Robinson by the new leader


By Tim Sculthorpe, Deputy Political Editor For Mailonline
20 January 2019

Nigel Farage has endorsed a brand new pro-Brexit political party and warned Theresa May he will 'step back into the fray' if exit day is delayed from March 29.

The ex-Ukip leader warned of 'betrayal' of the Leave vote from 2016 and stepped up his vow to return to front line politics to defend it.

Mr Farage has abandoned his old party as current leader Gerard Batten cosies up to activist Tommy Robinson.

But he endorsed a fledgling new party called 'The Brexit Party' set up by another former Ukip politician that has applied to the Electoral Commission.


Nigel Farage (pictured at a Leave Means Leave rally on Thursday) has endorsed a brand new pro-Brexit political party and warned Theresa May he will 'step back into the fray' if exit day is delayed from March 29


Theresa May (pictured attending church today) is scrambling to find a Brexit Plan B after her deal was crushed by 230 votes on Tuesday

Mr Farage told the Sun on Sunday: 'There is huge demand for a party that's got real clarity on this issue. You can see and hear the frustration welling up out there.

'It's clear the political elite want to stop Brexit in its tracks and the Prime Minister doesn't have the strength or inclination to see this through.

'I've been watching events with growing dismay — I'm not the only one. Now we are putting them on notice that if Brexit doesn't happen on March 29 we are not prepared to stand by and do nothing.'

He added: 'I've been concerned about the way the Brexit process has been going for some time. The Brexiteers told me to keep quiet and it will all be fine.

'I've now come to the conclusion that is not going to be the case. I've been hoping for the best and preparing for the worst for some time.

'Theresa May is engaged in the betrayal of Brexit. The whole process has undergone a slow strangulation. We must start preparing for all eventualities now.


Former Ukip economics spokesman Catherine Blaiklock applied to the elections watchdog on January 11. It confirmed today it was considering the party

'I will step back into the fray and do it all again if I must but this time I will take no prisoners.'

Before it can stand candidates and raise money, The Brexit Party must be fully registered with the Electoral Commission.

Former Ukip economics spokesman Catherine Blaiklock applied to the elections watchdog on January 11. It confirmed today it was considering the party.

Mr Farage said: 'This was Catherine's idea entirely — but she has done this with my full knowledge and my full support. If the Government goes back on its word and betrays the millions of people who voted for Brexit then we need a party prepared to stand up and fight for it.

'I'm fully prepared for Article 50 to be extended or revoked and if that happens, I will re-enter the fray.

'There would be a huge public backlash and without doubt the people will flock to a real pro-Brexit party in droves. Our first task would be to fight the European elections on May 23.'

Asked what role he might play in the party, Mr Farage insisted 'it's very early days'.

He added: 'I've been campaigning to leave the EU for a quarter of a century. I believe in it with all my heart and soul and gave up the best part of my adult life for it. The Eurocrats are laughing their socks off at how they have 'screwed the Brits'. If we do not get a proper Brexit, I will be forced to do something again.'

An Electoral Commission spokesman said: 'I can confirm that The Brexit Party is applying to be registered.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...xit-party.html
 
White_Unifier
#2
I pitty Farage for his having wasted much of his adult life on something as petty as Brexit. He could have invested that time on overcoming his nicotine addiction instead.

I fear this new Brexit Party will not change much unless it presents something more than leave without a plan.

Perhaps what would prove more successful might be at least two Brexit parties:

1. The Party for Unilateral Global Free Trade. While not specifically pro Brexit, it would favour a gradual transition towards unilateral global free trade. In practical terms, this would essentially force it towards an eventual hard Brexit unless the EU should allow the UK to trade freely with the world from within the EU framework.

2. The Party for a No-Deal Brexit, a Return to WTO Rules, and the Ruining of the UK Economy (i.e. Farage and the Brexit Party).

3. The Soft Brexit Party. It might just endorse May's plan.

What Farage and this new party don't seem to understand is that Brexiteers themselves can't even agree on what kind of Brexit they want.
 
Blackleaf
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

I fear this new Brexit Party

Of course you do.
 
Blackleaf
#4
ROD LIDDLE We need a new political party after Brexit as Labour and Tories don’t represent British people or our family values

It might not hurt us to follow the rise of 'populist' parties in Europe who focus on traditional values and are Eurosceptic, writes Rod Liddle

COMMENT
By Rod Liddle, Sun Columnist
23rd January 2019
The Sun

JANUARY is always gloomy. The cold gets in your bones, the days still get dark early and summer seems a million years away.

So I tell you what - let's have a party.


The parties in our Parliament do not represent the people anymore. It's time for a change

Thing is, I don’t mean a shindig where we all get copiously rat-a***d.

I mean a political party. A new political party, which represents what a lot of us want.

Because you’ve got to say — the parties in Westminster aren’t doing that, are they?

Whatever happens at the end of this awful Brexit mess, one thing is clear, our politics have to change.

The divisions between our current parties no longer reflect the divisions in the country. If Brexit has told us anything, it’s told us that.

And there is a growing anger out there that the views of millions and millions of people are simply not represented in Parliament.

That’s obvious from Brexit — more than a third of Labour voters wanted us to leave. Including a majority in some northern constituencies. Almost two thirds of Tory voters wanted us to leave.

TRAVESTY OF DEMOCRACY

Nigel Farage, the former leader of Ukip, has already said he fancies creating a new party. A Brexit Party.

Good luck to the man — I might even join it, because I have the horrible feeling our Parliament is going to betray the people, and we’ll end up staying in. That would be a travesty of democracy.

But it’s about a hell of a lot more than Brexit.

The very reasons which convinced more than 17million of us to vote for Brexit were the same as those which are causing divisions across Europe. And as a result we’ve seen the huge rise of populist parties. In Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Greece, France and even Germany. Oh — and, of course — the USA.


The rise of 'populist' parties might not be a bad thing if they really are the people's voice

These parties are sometimes right wing, sometimes left wing. In Italy there is an alliance between the two.

What they are all, though, is different to the politics we have now. They are parties which listen to the people. Populist is just another way of saying popular, really.

Most agree on a whole bunch of issues. We need to control immigration, number one. Especially immigration from Islamic countries.

We need a bit more respect for the nation state: People feel proud of the countries in which they live. Yes, even some Belgians.

A lot are socially conservative. By which I mean they do not have much time for gender neutral toilets, LGBTQI protests, political correctness and so on.

Instead, they have a respect for traditional values. For the family, for the Christian faith, on which our countries were founded. For our histories. And they are sceptical of the European Union.

But they also recognise that there are deep economic divisions within our countries which need to be addressed. In our own country a terrible chasm between the affluence and influence of London, versus the rest of the country. Between rich and poor.

We have no political party right now which covers those bases.

But that is where the real divide in society lies. So, as January drags on - how about a party? One that represents US?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/826566...iddle-opinion/
Last edited by Blackleaf; 3 weeks ago at 09:44 AM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#5
Farage for king!
 
White_Unifier
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Of course you do.

So what are Farage and the Brexit Party proposing beyond just leaving without a plan? WTO rules? Seriously? Is that it? Does Farage have the slightest inkling of economics?
 
White_Unifier
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Farage for king!

That's just cruel.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

That's just cruel.

You just now figuring out I'm a dick?
 
Blackleaf
#9
MPs are voting on proposals to change the direction of Brexit.

A number of amendments have been put forward by MPs after Theresa May's original deal was voted down by Parliament earlier in January.

Among them are plans to delay Brexit to prevent a no deal, and a call for the Irish backstop to be replaced by "alternative arrangements".

Mrs May said she wants to re-open negotiations in Brussels with an "emphatic message" of what MPs want.

The first three amendments - tabled by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford and Tory backbencher Dominic Grieve - were all voted down by the House. You can read the detail of all the amendments here.

Mr Corbyn's amendment was voted down by 327 votes to 296, Mr Blackford's only saw 39 votes of support, compared to 327 votes against, and Mr Grieve, who wanted MPs to be given six days to debate Brexit alternatives, lost by 321 votes to 301.

The fourth amendment - tabled by Labour's Yvette Cooper - is now being voted on. If passed, it would start a process that could force the government to ask for an extension to Brexit.

Kuenssberg: Theresa May blinked
There are three more amendments to be tabled that could be voted on - including one, from Tory MP Sir Graham Brady, calling for an "alternative" to the Irish backstop, which Tory MPs have been ordered to back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47037365
 
Blackleaf
#10
Good news: The Cooper Amendment, looking to delay Brexit, has been defeated by 321 to 298.
 
Blackleaf
#11
The Remainers are starting to react to this news in true Remainer fashion on Twitter:

Ian Dunt, editor of politics.co.uk, simply wrote: "****ing morons."
 
Blackleaf
#12
MPs have voted 318 to 310 to stop a No Deal Brexit. However, that vote is non-binding.

MPs have backed seeking "alternative arrangements" to replace the Irish backstop in Theresa May's Brexit plan.

The proposal - put forward by Tory MP Sir Graham Brady - had the support of the government and won by 317 to 301.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13
Blow up the Chunnel, re-arm the IRA. Give all Brits 24 hours to be out of the EU.
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Blow up the Chunnel, re-arm the IRA. Give all Brits 24 hours to be out of the EU.

Blowing up the Chunnel will achieve nothing apart from cutting off mainland Europe. Is that what you really want?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Blowing up the Chunnel will achieve nothing apart from cutting off mainland Europe. Is that what you really want?

It wouldn't cut off mainland Europe. It would cut off Britain. What you said is like saying that blowing up the bridge to Anglesey would cut off Britain.
 
Hoid
#16
"MPs have voted 318 to 310 to stop a No Deal Brexit. However, that vote is non-binding."

Sounds perfectly in keeping with the entire shitshow.
 
Blackleaf
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

It wouldn't cut off mainland Europe. It would cut off Britain. What you said is like saying that blowing up the bridge to Anglesey would cut off Britain.

Course it would cut it off - apart from by boat, plane or swimming, of course.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

"MPs have voted 318 to 310 to stop a No Deal Brexit. However, that vote is non-binding."
Sounds perfectly in keeping with the entire shitshow.

Good to see Parliament finally taking into consideration what the people voted for democratically 31 months ago.

The EU has just come out in response to the Commons voting for the Brady Amendment (see above) by saying that it will agree to no change to May's Withdrawal Agreement. It's trying to act tough and clever. So we will see how much the EU acts tough and clever when Britain replies: "Fine. We'll leave with No Deal then."
Last edited by Blackleaf; 3 weeks ago at 06:01 PM..
 
White_Unifier
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Good to see Parliament finally taking into consideration what the people voted for democratically 31 months ago.
The EU has just come out in response to the Commons voting for the Brady Amendment (see above) by saying that it will agree to no change to May's Withdrawal Agreement. It's trying to act tough and clever. So we will see how much the EU acts tough and clever when Britain replies: "Fine. We'll leave with No Deal then."

And what's your plan after a No-deal Brexit other than just WTO rules and economic masochism?
 
Blackleaf
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

And what's your plan after a No-deal Brexit other than just WTO rules and economic masochism?

Why are you against a country fully regaining its sovereignty and independence? I thought such things were to be encouraged and celebrated. Or that used to be the case at least. Do you also disagree with Canada's independence from the British Empire?
 
White_Unifier
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Why are you against a country fully regaining its sovereignty and independence? I thought such things were to be encouraged and celebrated. Or that used to be the case at least. Do you also disagree with Canada's independence from the British Empire?

You still don't know yet what kind of Brexit it's going to be.

1. If it's a soft May-style Brexit, you'd more or less have the status quo minus a vote in the EU Parliament, but at least no immediate economic hardship but also no real freedom from EU rules even if the UK would have technically left.

2. If it's WTO rules and you leave it at that, that would just be economic masochism in both the short and long terms.

3. If you're looking at unilateral global free trade in tariffs and quotas and aggressive pursuit of trade agreements to supplement it, you'd still feel pain in the short to medium terms but at least you could rebuild in the long term and maybe come out ahead.

4. Someting else.

If you gave me a choice between remaining in the EU and option 1, I'd definitely vote to remain in the EU. At least the UK would get a vote in the EU Parliament.

If it were a choice between remaining in the EU and option 2, I'd choose to remain because at least the UK would still have free access to the EU market, which would be better than nothing.

If it were a choice between remaining and option 4, I'd still choose to remain because better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

If it were a choice between remain and option 3, then I'd consider it. At least it might bring about long-term benefits, but I'd be under no illusion about it being an easy ride.

Right now, you're just offering a choice between remain and option 4 now that May's deal has been rejected. What kind of choice is that?
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

You still don't know yet what kind of Brexit it's going to be.
1. If it's a soft May-style Brexit, you'd more or less have the status quo minus a vote in the EU Parliament, but at least no immediate economic hardship but also no real freedom from EU rules even if the UK would have technically left.
2. If it's WTO rules and you leave it at that, that would just be economic masochism in both the short and long terms.
3. If you're looking at unilateral global free trade in tariffs and quotas and aggressive pursuit of trade agreements to supplement it, you'd still feel pain in the short to medium terms but at least you could rebuild in the long term and maybe come out ahead.
4. Someting else.
If you gave me a choice between remaining in the EU and option 1, I'd definitely vote to remain in the EU. At least the UK would get a vote in the EU Parliament.
If it were a choice between remaining in the EU and option 2, I'd choose to remain because at least the UK would still have free access to the EU market, which would be better than nothing.
If it were a choice between remaining and option 4, I'd still choose to remain because better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
If it were a choice between remain and option 3, then I'd consider it. At least it might bring about long-term benefits, but I'd be under no illusion about it being an easy ride.
Right now, you're just offering a choice between remain and option 4 now that May's deal has been rejected. What kind of choice is that?

You're against a country regaining its sovereignty and independence and support its being run by a foreign power.

That smacks of imperialism.
 
White_Unifier
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

You're against a country regaining its sovereignty and independence and support its being run by a foreign power.
That smacks of imperialism.

No. I'm against a country committing economic suicide for no damn reason. The UK has always maintained at least enough sovereigntly to vote for a Parliament that has the power to leave the EU should it choose to do so. In fact, another election is coming soon, no?
 
White_Unifier
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

You're against a country regaining its sovereignty and independence and support its being run by a foreign power.
That smacks of imperialism.

So you don't think the UK should have any kind of particular Brexit strategy, just blindfoldedly jump into the unknown?
 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

So you don't think the UK should have any kind of particular Brexit strategy, just blindfoldedly jump into the unknown?

How can you have a strategy for sovereignty and independence and pick what type you want? You're either sovereign and independent or you aren't and the British people voted for the former. They are getting quite impatient now and things will start to turn ugly and violent if full independence does not occur on 29th March.
 
White_Unifier
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

How can you have a strategy for sovereignty and independence and pick what type you want? You're either sovereign and independent or you aren't and the British people voted for the former. They are getting quite impatient now and things will start to turn ugly and violent if full independence does not occur on 29th March.

Are you serious? The UK has always retained at least enough sovereignty to leave the EU whenever it wanted to. If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea. What many don't understand is that sovereignty lies along a spectrum. It's a question of how much sovereignty a state is willing to trade in exchange for access to foreign markets. Sovereignty to excess can actually cause more harm than good. Imagine if each Canadian municipality was its own city state and they each refused to set up any kind of overarching organization however decentralized it might be because sovereignty.
 
Blackleaf
#27
A big defeat for the Remainers tonight...

Tonight’s votes dashed the hopes of those calling for a softer Brexit

Katy Balls


MPs Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper

29 January 2019
The Spectator

It’s been a disappointing night for the Remain and soft Brexit factions of parliament. Ahead of the votes on amendments to Theresa May’s Brexit plan, there had been a hope among some that the votes would serve as an opportunity to soften the government’s Brexit position. After the Prime Minister’s deal was voted down by 230 votes last month, a number of MPs – as well as officials in Brussels – read it as a sign that the only way to get a Brexit deal through parliament was for May to pivot to a softer Brexit.

Tonight those hopes were dashed. Graham Brady’s government supported amendment calling for an alternative arrangement to the backstop won a majority of Commons support (Isabel has details on Coffee House of how realistic that ask is). Meanwhile, Yvette Cooper’s much hyped amendment to stop a no-deal Brexit by forcing the government to extend Article 50 if it looked likely, fell short. Dominic Grieve’s amendment calling for days to debate the other Brexit options also failed. The only other Brexit amendment that did pass was that put forward by Caroline Spelman and Jack Dromey. That amendment simply asserted that the House was against no deal. It carries only political weight so doesn’t force the government to do anything to stop it.

So, why did MPs like Yvette Cooper believe they had a chance of winning? In the end, the downfall of Cooper’s plan was the Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies. A chunk of these MPs voted against the proposals. Ahead of the vote, I reported how some of these MPs were anxious about the amendment as they could be accused of trying to delay or even stop Brexit. This is not to say that there won’t be more attempts in the coming weeks and months to take no deal off the table. A number of Remain-leaning ministers say they held off rebelling this time in order to give May time but will rebel if no deal starts to look more likely. That said, it’s clear that tonight the Remainers were on the losing side.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...-softer-brexit
 
Blackleaf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Are you serious? The UK has always retained at least enough sovereignty to leave the EU whenever it wanted to. If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea. What many don't understand is that sovereignty lies along a spectrum. It's a question of how much sovereignty a state is willing to trade in exchange for access to foreign markets. Sovereignty to excess can actually cause more harm than good. Imagine if each Canadian municipality was its own city state and they each refused to set up any kind of overarching organization however decentralized it might be because sovereignty.

Would you have said such guff - let's face it, that's what it is - to all the countries who chose to become independent of the British Empire?

Would you have stood there in front of thousands of Indians and shouted to them: " If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea"?
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Would you have said such guff - let's face it, that's what it is - to all the countries who chose to become independent of the British Empire?

Would you have stood there in front of thousands of Indians and shouted to them: " If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea"?

Zimbabwe is wowe .
 
White_Unifier
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Would you have said such guff - let's face it, that's what it is - to all the countries who chose to become independent of the British Empire?
Would you have stood there in front of thousands of Indians and shouted to them: " If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea"?

Actually, I would have favoured maintaining a common citizenship between Canada and the UK. Sovereignty to excess deprives us of that. Not only would it benefit Canada but the UK too.

And yes, if indigenous Canadians separated, formed their own sovereign states, and sought no cooperation between one another because sovereignty, their economies would be a shambles.

Any other example you could throw at me?