citizen of nowhere

The strongest objection to Brexit is not that it will make everyone poorer, which is certainly true, but that it is a rejection of the principles of solidarity, common purpose and fairness which have bound the people of Europe together in peace and prosperity for over six decades. The European Union is founded on a set of agreed principles by which Europeans co-operate, trade, study, work and invest. Every member state and every citizen can aspire to be more prosperous and safer because of our shared effort. Britain has rejected this spirit of solidarity, of shared rules, effort and prosperity. Obviously this is a matter of regret for the rest of Europe, and for the 16million UK residents who voted “Remain” but we cannot allow ourselves to surrender to nationalist isolationism or lies. We who believe in solidarity, progress and shared prosperity must redouble our commitment and carry on. The lies on which the “Vote Leave” campaign was founded are being brutally exposed. The Brexit

Mrs Mayhem knows it’s impossible to unify her party on the terms of Brexit in the near future. I believe she also knows it’s impossible to negotiate a new relationship with the EU before March 2019, given the limited time and lack of consensus at home. Her strategy is to simply get beyond March 2019, relying on the idea that, once Britain is out of the EU, the terms of debate will change. There will be no point arguing whether Britain might somehow remain in the EU after Britain has left. Mrs Mayhem hopes her party might have a chance of coming together around the next big question, what sort of relationship should Britain have with the EU, after leaving. This is a risky strategy. Britain will be in an even weaker negotiating position after Brexit. The question was raised in an exchange between Jacob Rees Mogg and David Davis in parliament recently when JRM asked if it might not make more sense to extend the Article 50 deadline rather than embarking on a transition to an unknown des

Imagine the scene, the management of the Premier League are startled to receive a letter from Manchester United; “We hereby give notice of our intention to leave the Premiership. We no longer recognise your rules or your hated referees and administrators. We will make no more financial contributions to your running costs, while carrying on as if nothing changed. We require you to allow us to play in the Premiership, under rules which we alone will decide, a mixture of cricket, water polo and football (or any other daft rules we decide on). We will be free to play with global giants like Beijing United, Washington Rednecks and Kuala Lumpur Rovers using our own rules, and our own referees. We will no longer allow visiting fans access to our grounds. We expect our fans to continue to have full access to all Premiership games. We also require you to ensure we participate in the European Champions League every year, regardless of results, along with t.v. rights and all the other benefits

There are numerous ways of telling lies. Saying something untrue is the obvious way. Another technique is the implicit lie which, when it is repeated frequently, becomes accepted. An example of an implied lie is the Brexit proposition that money contributed to the EU is squandered uselessly. This is often stated in a roundabout way, focussing on marginal details. Brexiters have been careful to focus on the issue of control of the funds flowing into the EU rather than the more challenging question of the value to the UK. The implication is that British taxpayers get no value from their EU contributions and this money can be diverted to the UK no cost, but the slow grinding process of withdrawal from the EU is revealing a very different truth. In fact the money contributed by EU member states funds a wide range of important shared services. After withdrawal Britain will have the doubtful privilege of replicating these services and paying the full cost, without the benefits of collabora