Brexit Negotiations

[Glyn_Wigley]

But that's a useless negotiating strategy. Because no one believes that the Govt would go for No Deal.

If Parliament votes down the sham that's coming, the alternative isn't No Deal. The alternative is the end of May and probably a General Election.

I think they will emphasise the lack of time and the risk of No Deal by default. There was a school of thought that WW1 started because no-one could agree on an alternative. Ditto a No Deal Brexit.

That analogy doesn't work.

There is a clear majority in Parliament against a No Deal Brexit.

There is absolutely no reason why we should stumble into a No Deal outcome.

If it looked as though the Govt was taking us down that route (which itself would be beyond idiotic, since it would secure the historical position if Teresa May as THE most catastrophic PM ever) then there would be a vote of No Confidence in the Govt, which would pass easily.

May has been trying to pass of No Deal as an outcine that should be taken seriously, in an attempt to bolster her negotiating position. But it's stupid and it's inconceivable. It's the equivalent of saying "Give me what I demand or I'll...or I'll...or I'll blow my head off.

Not only that, but if there was going to be a General Election, or even a second referendum (whether after another General Election or not), the EU will almost certainly agree to an Article 50 extension.

[The Red Baron]

I agree there is no majority for No Deal and I don't think there is any way May could get a modified version of the Chequers Plan through Parliament.

I am wondering whether the Government is looking to put a variant of the Norway Model on the table. Stay in the Single Market and also the Customs Union (the latter at least until something workable can be developed to deal with the Irish Border). That would almost certainly be acceptable to the EU. (The contentious bit would be the CU, hence why the Attorney-General has been so involved of late).

May could then present that as the only game in town, other than No Deal. Yes, 40-50 Tory MPs would be dead against, and Farage would do his nut. Her aim would be to persuade enough other MPs to vote for the Deal, and hold up the spectre of No Deal.

If it doesn't work then we probably do have a GE, a Labour Government and maybe a Second Referendum with Remain on the ballot paper. That might even be enough to get a few Tory Brexiteers (not all of course) to think again.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB.

Here's the mess we're in.

There's no majority for ANY outcome.

But there's a majority AGAINST any outcome.

The Tory party has a majority in favour of a hard Brexit. But Parliament doesn't.

May thinks she can get some sort of wooly wording that could stretch over party boundaries. But Labour wants to use this crisis to bring the Govt down, so won't support any deal.

The majority in the country's now wants us to stay in the EU, but there's no majority in Parliament for that.

The Thick of It script writers would have had a field day with this situation. It is the very definition of a reight f**king mess.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Omnishambles!

[Donnywolf]

... and one of the Architects Cameron is eyeing a comeback as if he aint done enough damage

Let him suffer like the rest of us. After all he kept telling people that Sam Cam was from a working class Town (Scunthorpe) and apparantly has a "field" there somewhere

Yeah Normanby Park no less !

[wilts rover]

... and one of the Architects Cameron is eyeing a comeback as if he aint done enough damage

Let him suffer like the rest of us. After all he kept telling people that Sam Cam was from a working class Town (Scunthorpe) and apparantly has a "field" there somewhere

Yeah Normanby Park no less !

My Aunt Daisy's family used to work for her grandad. She always said he was the most horrible and despicable person she ever met, and she knew a few as she was a nurse in a mental hospital! Just throwing that out there.

[Not Now Kato]

Our Brexit Secretary says he “hadn’t quite understood” the importance of cross-Channel trade to the UK economy.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-raab-trade-eu-france-calais-dover-economy-finance-deal-a8624036.html
 
And I though David Davis was bad     You just couldn't make this up!

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've given my two pennorth about my interaction with Raab before. He is barely on nodding terms with facts.

[i_ateallthepies]

Our Brexit Secretary says he “hadn’t quite understood” the importance of cross-Channel trade to the UK economy.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-raab-trade-eu-france-calais-dover-economy-finance-deal-a8624036.html
 
And I though David Davis was bad     You just couldn't make this up!

Completely agree NNK, but my take on it is that it's refreshingly honest for someone, especially a politician to admit not being on top of their brief.  I'd prefer that the the bluster, bullshit and downright lies we get from the likes of BoJo and his ilk.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's one take. But this is such a fundamental issues to be ignorant of. It's like a football manager admitting he doesn't know the offside rule.

[Not Now Kato]

I think this article sums up the conundrum that is Brexit....
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/05/pro-europe-mps-brexit-conmen
 

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Our Brexit Secretary says he “hadn’t quite understood” the importance of cross-Channel trade to the UK economy.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-raab-trade-eu-france-calais-dover-economy-finance-deal-a8624036.html
 
And I though David Davis was bad     You just couldn't make this up!

Might as well ask a herd of geese to negotiate on our behalf...

[Herbert Anchovy]

  I think Cameron and Osborne should be tried for treason, or should it be for idiocy.

If you haven't already read it then 'All Out War', Tim Shipman's book on the referendum campaign is a great read and a good insight into what most of the major players were thinking about during the campaign.

Cameron had his own polling company the running during the campaign. When the national polls were showing a very tight race and reports from campaigners on the doorsteps came back saying there was a lot of support for leave, Cameron was never worried, or changed his campaign tactics, as his polling showed remain well ahead. He was even more confident on referendum night as his poll showed remain with an 11 point lead....

Just watch the TV debates again - the Remain camp were utterly and woefully inadequate. Their arguments were based on telling people how terrible things would be if we left the EU rather than advising what the positives are about EU membership. The picture that they were painting was 'we know things are bad now, but this is as good as it gets'. Hardly inspiring stuff. I firmly believe that the remain camp lost the vote rather than the Brexit camp won it...

[Herbert Anchovy]

96 pages and counting, look back and see if any leavers actually want to discuss facts or just want to distract and ignore direct questions, I think as the stayers have been supported by most if no all experts and business leaders with examinations of the leave case its myths and distortions that the leavers can have first go.

Name a single credible reason for leaving that would advantage the majority (leave out your personal feelings/reasons puleeese)

When that has been achieved it's the stayers turn.

Sydney

I’ve already stated that one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will be able to nationalise the railways. Does this meet your criteria of “a single credible reason” for leaving?

BTW, I’m not claiming to be Remain or Brexit, however claiming that there’s no positives to leaving is simply wrong. Whether they outweigh the advantages of remaining Areca different matter.

I'm afraid not HA as many have challenged this to say that being in the EU does not preclude the government owning railway assets, it depends on how its done.

The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claims

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.html

https://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Sydney,

The UK Government, nor the Government of any member state, is able to pledge or guarantee a wholesale nationalisation of its railways. The delivery of railway services must go through a commercial tendering process which is open to all parties. Additionally, EU rules dictate that the same organisation cannot deliver the services to the Network, Trains Services and Infrastructure. As a consequence, it is impossible for the Government to renationalise the whole rail structure in the UK. It could nationalise part of it (if it won the contract) but not the whole. So, if there was a GE tomorrow and Corbyn became PM he couldn't renationalise the railways.
The comment that you've made regarding John Mcdonnel's comments are slightly misleading. Labour COULD renationlise the railways within a first term in Goverment because, when and if they do come into power we will have left (or be very close to) the EU!


So, my original comment that an advantage of leaving the EU is that we will be able to fully nationalise the railways still stands.


However, what I also find interesting about the EU stance on railway ownership is that the EU actually promote the UK railway ownership system as an example for other member countries to follow! Their original aim was for all railways within the Union to be managed under private ownership. It was only at the intervention of the Germans and, to a lesser extent the French, that this policy was watered down to allow the possibility of some public ownership. The EU seem to be fundamentaly opposed to any form of public ownership, which is why you'll rarely see the UK arguing about this. For anyone who uses the railways regularly in the UK this must be a baffling policy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Herbert

That was the problem.

Remain didn't have a Jerusalem to sell. They WERE right that things WILL be bloody awful when we leave. By inference, that means that things would be significantly better if we stayed in. That was effectively the Remain pitch. Highlighting the very serious problems that WILL come from leaving.

Leave, on the other hand were free to promise golden sunlit uplands if we left, with everyone getting a pay rise and a free blowjob on demand. It was all utter b*llocks of course, but it's a much easier pitch to sell.

In a nutshell. Remain had a realistic (and correct) story of a pessimistic outcome if we changed the status quo. Leave had an unrealistic (and wrong) story of an optimistic outcome. Add to the mix that fact that you had shark oil salesmen like Farage and Johnson who have flexible relationships with truth and morals, and it was far easier for them to play to the crowd.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well, well, well.

Be fun at the next Johnson family get together.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46155403

[Herbert Anchovy]

Herbert

That was the problem.

Remain didn't have a Jerusalem to sell. They WERE right that things WILL be bloody awful when we leave. By inference, that means that things would be significantly better if we stayed in. That was effectively the Remain pitch. Highlighting the very serious problems that WILL come from leaving.

Leave, on the other hand were free to promise golden sunlit uplands if we left, with everyone getting a pay rise and a free blowjob on demand. It was all utter b*llocks of course, but it's a much easier pitch to sell.

In a nutshell. Remain had a realistic (and correct) story of a pessimistic outcome if we changed the status quo. Leave had an unrealistic (and wrong) story of an optimistic outcome. Add to the mix that fact that you had shark oil salesmen like Farage and Johnson who have flexible relationships with truth and morals, and it was far easier for them to play to the crowd.

Billy,

I agree, but you’re slightly missing the point. For many, many people their primary association with EU membership is/was immigration, often in a negative light. Prior to the referendum most people would not have been aware how EU membership benefits the country. The TV debates were an absolutely ideal opportunity to illuminate the nation on what they get from being in the club, to really promote how membership improves everyday life for people...but they didn’t. Instead they tried to shit people up with scare stories and consequently allowed the leave vote to take the initiative on ‘good news’ forecasts. The debate that featured Sadiq Khan and Boris Johnson is a perfect example of this.

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA. Yep. I'll agree with you on all those points.

The problem is that there has been a long-term unbalance in the discussions on the EU. Popular media have been heavily anti-EU and this has made it extremely difficult to put a positive story out on everything from overall economic performance (ours had been better from 1975-2016 than either Germany or France) through immigration (study after study has demonstrated that the overall economic effects of immigration from the EU are strongly net-positive - if schools and hospitals are struggling due to immigration, that's because we haven't invested heavily enough in them, not because immigration has cost us economically) to peace and stability in Europe (a core founding principle of the EEC/EC/EU was to make the sort of antagonism that dominated the previous 20 centuries unthinkable - but mention that and you're painted as a "Leaving the EU will results in WWIII"-monger).

I'm not for a minute excusing the performance of  the Leave campaigners, but there was a long-term context to it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meanwhile.

Interesting Twitter thread here.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1060869796785467392

I've been saying for a year and more that Corbyn pulled off a brilliant sleight of hand in 2017. He convinced Left-leaning Remain supporters that he would lead opposition to Brexit, and Left-leaning Leavers that he was on their side.

But like I've been saying, that stance couldn't survive the actual run up to the Brexit date. It looks as though his popularity among Remain supporting Labour voters, and young Labour supporters is collapsing.

As was inevitable. Because he isn't and never was against Brexit.

[SydneyRover]

96 pages and counting, look back and see if any leavers actually want to discuss facts or just want to distract and ignore direct questions, I think as the stayers have been supported by most if no all experts and business leaders with examinations of the leave case its myths and distortions that the leavers can have first go.

Name a single credible reason for leaving that would advantage the majority (leave out your personal feelings/reasons puleeese)

When that has been achieved it's the stayers turn.

Sydney

I’ve already stated that one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will be able to nationalise the railways. Does this meet your criteria of “a single credible reason” for leaving?

BTW, I’m not claiming to be Remain or Brexit, however claiming that there’s no positives to leaving is simply wrong. Whether they outweigh the advantages of remaining Areca different matter.

I'm afraid not HA as many have challenged this to say that being in the EU does not preclude the government owning railway assets, it depends on how its done.

The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claims

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.html

https://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Sydney,

The UK Government, nor the Government of any member state, is able to pledge or guarantee a wholesale nationalisation of its railways. The delivery of railway services must go through a commercial tendering process which is open to all parties. Additionally, EU rules dictate that the same organisation cannot deliver the services to the Network, Trains Services and Infrastructure. As a consequence, it is impossible for the Government to renationalise the whole rail structure in the UK. It could nationalise part of it (if it won the contract) but not the whole. So, if there was a GE tomorrow and Corbyn became PM he couldn't renationalise the railways.
The comment that you've made regarding John Mcdonnel's comments are slightly misleading. Labour COULD renationlise the railways within a first term in Goverment because, when and if they do come into power we will have left (or be very close to) the EU!


So, my original comment that an advantage of leaving the EU is that we will be able to fully nationalise the railways still stands.


However, what I also find interesting about the EU stance on railway ownership is that the EU actually promote the UK railway ownership system as an example for other member countries to follow! Their original aim was for all railways within the Union to be managed under private ownership. It was only at the intervention of the Germans and, to a lesser extent the French, that this policy was watered down to allow the possibility of some public ownership. The EU seem to be fundamentaly opposed to any form of public ownership, which is why you'll rarely see the UK arguing about this. For anyone who uses the railways regularly in the UK this must be a baffling policy.

''Germany. The earliest railways in the German states were often run by private entrepreneurs. ... After German reunification, DB and DR became Deutsche Bahn AG in 1994. Whilst DB AG is a public limited company, all its shares are presently owned by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany''

Where there's a will?

[Herbert Anchovy]

96 pages and counting, look back and see if any leavers actually want to discuss facts or just want to distract and ignore direct questions, I think as the stayers have been supported by most if no all experts and business leaders with examinations of the leave case its myths and distortions that the leavers can have first go.

Name a single credible reason for leaving that would advantage the majority (leave out your personal feelings/reasons puleeese)

When that has been achieved it's the stayers turn.

Sydney

I’ve already stated that one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will be able to nationalise the railways. Does this meet your criteria of “a single credible reason” for leaving?

BTW, I’m not claiming to be Remain or Brexit, however claiming that there’s no positives to leaving is simply wrong. Whether they outweigh the advantages of remaining Areca different matter.

I'm afraid not HA as many have challenged this to say that being in the EU does not preclude the government owning railway assets, it depends on how its done.

The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claims

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.html

https://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Sydney,

The UK Government, nor the Government of any member state, is able to pledge or guarantee a wholesale nationalisation of its railways. The delivery of railway services must go through a commercial tendering process which is open to all parties. Additionally, EU rules dictate that the same organisation cannot deliver the services to the Network, Trains Services and Infrastructure. As a consequence, it is impossible for the Government to renationalise the whole rail structure in the UK. It could nationalise part of it (if it won the contract) but not the whole. So, if there was a GE tomorrow and Corbyn became PM he couldn't renationalise the railways.
The comment that you've made regarding John Mcdonnel's comments are slightly misleading. Labour COULD renationlise the railways within a first term in Goverment because, when and if they do come into power we will have left (or be very close to) the EU!


So, my original comment that an advantage of leaving the EU is that we will be able to fully nationalise the railways still stands.


However, what I also find interesting about the EU stance on railway ownership is that the EU actually promote the UK railway ownership system as an example for other member countries to follow! Their original aim was for all railways within the Union to be managed under private ownership. It was only at the intervention of the Germans and, to a lesser extent the French, that this policy was watered down to allow the possibility of some public ownership. The EU seem to be fundamentaly opposed to any form of public ownership, which is why you'll rarely see the UK arguing about this. For anyone who uses the railways regularly in the UK this must be a baffling policy.

''Germany. The earliest railways in the German states were often run by private entrepreneurs. ... After German reunification, DB and DR became Deutsche Bahn AG in 1994. Whilst DB AG is a public limited company, all its shares are presently owned by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany''

Where there's a will?

Sydney,

The services of the railways in Germany are owned by the state Government, however rail contracts for local and regional rail services have to be awarded through competitive tendering on the open market meaning the private sector often provide these franchises. The trains and drivers are owned by the private sector organisation.

This is hardly a nationalised, publicly owned railway.

[SydneyRover]

Soubry is convinced that the deal Theresa May hopes to bring back from Brussels in the next few weeks will be worthless. “The promise was that we would have a deal about our future trading relationship with the European Union,” she says. “Everything would be settled. But we’re not going to get a deal. We’re going to get a withdrawal agreement and our future trading relationship will not be determined until after we’ve left the European Union. That is not what the British people were promised; that is not what they voted for. It is the most terrible betrayal. When the history books are written on this period, it will reflect exceedingly badly on an awful lot of people, who have put their heads in the sand and allowed this terrible mistake to take place.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/09/tory-mp-anna-soubry-the-young-will-never-forgive-my-party-brexit

[SydneyRover]

96 pages and counting, look back and see if any leavers actually want to discuss facts or just want to distract and ignore direct questions, I think as the stayers have been supported by most if no all experts and business leaders with examinations of the leave case its myths and distortions that the leavers can have first go.

Name a single credible reason for leaving that would advantage the majority (leave out your personal feelings/reasons puleeese)

When that has been achieved it's the stayers turn.

Sydney

I’ve already stated that one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will be able to nationalise the railways. Does this meet your criteria of “a single credible reason” for leaving?

BTW, I’m not claiming to be Remain or Brexit, however claiming that there’s no positives to leaving is simply wrong. Whether they outweigh the advantages of remaining Areca different matter.

I'm afraid not HA as many have challenged this to say that being in the EU does not preclude the government owning railway assets, it depends on how its done.

The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claims

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.html

https://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Sydney,

The UK Government, nor the Government of any member state, is able to pledge or guarantee a wholesale nationalisation of its railways. The delivery of railway services must go through a commercial tendering process which is open to all parties. Additionally, EU rules dictate that the same organisation cannot deliver the services to the Network, Trains Services and Infrastructure. As a consequence, it is impossible for the Government to renationalise the whole rail structure in the UK. It could nationalise part of it (if it won the contract) but not the whole. So, if there was a GE tomorrow and Corbyn became PM he couldn't renationalise the railways.
The comment that you've made regarding John Mcdonnel's comments are slightly misleading. Labour COULD renationlise the railways within a first term in Goverment because, when and if they do come into power we will have left (or be very close to) the EU!


So, my original comment that an advantage of leaving the EU is that we will be able to fully nationalise the railways still stands.


However, what I also find interesting about the EU stance on railway ownership is that the EU actually promote the UK railway ownership system as an example for other member countries to follow! Their original aim was for all railways within the Union to be managed under private ownership. It was only at the intervention of the Germans and, to a lesser extent the French, that this policy was watered down to allow the possibility of some public ownership. The EU seem to be fundamentaly opposed to any form of public ownership, which is why you'll rarely see the UK arguing about this. For anyone who uses the railways regularly in the UK this must be a baffling policy.

''Germany. The earliest railways in the German states were often run by private entrepreneurs. ... After German reunification, DB and DR became Deutsche Bahn AG in 1994. Whilst DB AG is a public limited company, all its shares are presently owned by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany''

Where there's a will?

Sydney,

The services of the railways in Germany are owned by the state Government, however rail contracts for local and regional rail services have to be awarded through competitive tendering on the open market meaning the private sector often provide these franchises. The trains and drivers are owned by the private sector organisation.

This is hardly a nationalised, publicly owned railway.

I agree with you, but it does show there are ways the government of the day could/can get involved in running the railways without brexit.

That the rail companies only operated on leases paved the way for the nationalisation of the French rail lines under the socialist government of the 1930s. ... France's railways form a somewhat unusual case in that they have never been privately owned.

[Sprotyrover]

Nice to see Jeremy C is now advocating Brexit.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So he does.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-jeremy-cobyn-labour-party-eu-leave-remain-a8626871.html%3famp

"We can't stop it. The referendum took place. Article 50 has been triggered."

Factually incorrect and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of party members. And Labour voters.

This is going to be fun.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Johnson said yesterday that we are in the worst failure of British diplomacy since Suez.

This, in 1 minute, sums up just how f**king awfully we have approached Brexit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/brexitbroadcast/status/1060116437631680512

Who coukd have predicted that a bunch of utter amateurs trying to do the impossible would lead us into a disaster like this?

Putin must be pissing himself.

[bpoolrover]

Corbyn is in a no win situation, if may comes back with a deal no matter how bad she will say she delivered on the referendum, labour will then vote it down no matter what the deal is and that then ends his hopes of being pm as there are so many labour voters who want brexit

[Sprotyrover]

Theresa May as Home Secretary she destroyed the Police force and legal system.As Primeminister she is destroying the country. And the sad thing is that the only decent opposition party is currently being led by three Garden Gnomes!

[Copps is Magic]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/how-arron-banks-campaign-ambassador-jim-mellon-made-millions-in-russia-nigel-farage

[SydneyRover]

Did the brexit campaign actually have any honest brokers at all?

'The alliance has accepted all the allegations Sanni made during his action claiming unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct discrimination and “dismissal by reason of a philosophical belief in the sanctity of British democracy”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/11/brexit-whistleblower-shahmir-sanni-taxpayers-alliance-concedes-it-launched-smears