ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING - CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING - CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

The House of Commons Library published a paper in November last year which was brought to my attention recently.  The report has the figures for the financial year 2016/17 of the Barnett Formula.  The Barnett Formula determines that differential spending on UK citizens depending on which of the UK countries those citizens live in. 

The summary of the House of Commons research paper shows that England has the lowest national average spent on every man, woman and child.  This was £8,898 in 2016/17.  In Northern Ireland by contrast, it was £11,042. 

If you live in the English “Regions” of the South East, East of England, East Midlands, South West or West Midlands you get less spent on you than even the average of England.  It is only in London that British Government spending is more than even one of the other Nations of the UK.  It is slightly more than Wales.  London has £10,192 for every man, woman and child, instead of the Welsh average of £10,076!

This Barnett Formula spread in payments, which advantages Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is only for so-called “identifiable expenditure”, which is about 88% of the total public spending of the UK.  So the costs of the Foreign Office and of membership of the EU, and of Foreign Aid and Defence parts of the 12% of total public spending are not covered by the Barnett Formula. So also no allowance is made for the policies under which the British Government has headquartered British State agencies in Scotland and Wales, as for instance the DVLA and HMRC.  This is of course a yet further method of increasing the British State subsidy to those nations. 

It is worth pointing out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get yet a further method of subsidy at the moment through the EU.  The contributions to the EU which come out of English Taxpayers’ pockets (as that is the only part of the UK for which there is a net tax revenue) are funnelled back to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as EU payments, under the so-called “Conduit Effect”.

Some of the additional subsidy to London is not part of the Barnett Formula but is explained by the British State spending money on the security of its political class with its large expenditure on armed police to guard the State’s buildings, the provision of diversity barriers and all the other paraphernalia of running the British State. 

The other aspect of this of course is that London is now in John Cleese’s words “no longer an English city”.  The subsidy coming into London is from the predominantly English Regions to the predominantly non-English communities within London.  This is the fiscal background to the anti-English, metropolitan, inter-nationalist, multi-culturalism of the Labour Party’s predominance in London. 

Here is the House of Commons summary and also there is the link to the report itself which you can download>>> http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scot;lands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

In the last few days The Scottish Conservative Party under their multiculturalist Leader, Ruth Davidson, have been gloating again about Scotland’s “Union Dividend”.

Here is a quotation of part of their press release:-

“Scotland now raises eight per cent of UK total revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Total spending per person in Scotland for 2017/18 was £1576 per head higher than the rest of the UK, compared to £1448 per head the previous year.

Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary Murdo Fraser said:

“If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear.

“By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average. For a family of four, that’s more than £6000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

Here is the link to the original on the Scottish Conservatives’ Website>>> http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scotlands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

As a demonstration of how “Fake News” looks here is the text of the Telegraph’s article about this with its minor editing of the Scottish Conservatives’ Press Release:-

SNP urged to ditch plans for indyref2 as figures reveal Scotland's £13 billion deficit is four times the size of the UK's

•  Auslan Cramb, scottish correspondent

22 AUGUST 2018 • 

Nicola Sturgeon has been urged to abandon  her threat of a second independence referendum after official figures revealed that  Scotland ran up a £13 billion deficit last year that was four times the size of the UK’s.

Official figures on the state of the country’s finances also disclosed a record “Union dividend” of nearly  £1,900 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

That figure is made up of public spending that was £1,576 higher per person north of the border in 2017/18, while Scotland's public sector tax contributions were £306 less per head.

The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (Gers) figures - the difference between what the country raised in taxes and what it spent - revealed a total deficit of £13.4 billion, or 7.9 per cent of GDP -down from 8.9 per cent in 2016/17. The UK's spending deficit was just 1.9 per cent of GDP, down from 2.3 per cent.

Overall, Scotland’s public finances showed a slight improvement, thanks to North Sea revenue rising by more than £1 billion.

The First Minister claimed the figures proved Scotland was “on the right trajectory”, when considered alongside recent positive labour market statistics.

She added: "With the limited economic powers currently at our disposal, the actions we are taking to promote sustainable economic development are helping to ensure that the key economic indicators are moving in the right direction.”

However, the Scottish Conservatives said the finances of the rest of the UK were improving faster and the gap between the two was widening, with Scotland now raising eight per cent of total UK revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Murdo Fraser, Tory finance spokesman, said Ms Sturgeon needed to ditch plans for a new bid to break-up Britain or explain how she would find the billions required to file Scotland’s economic black hole in the event of independence.

He added: “If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

These figures confirm that being part of a strong United Kingdom is worth nearly £1,900 for every single person in ScotlandDavid Mundell

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear. By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1,576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average.  For a family of four, that’s more than £6,000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit

As I made clear in a previous article I think that many members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are making the error of thinking that their dishonesty over Brexit is going to be quickly forgotten just like all their previous lies to the electorate.  I think that they are making an order of magnitude error in thinking that this is the case. Brexit is the first time that the public had really focussed on a political issue for many decades. 

It is perhaps worth recalling that David Cameron of the Conservative Government promised repeatedly to implement the outcome of the referendum.  This was not least in the booklet which Cameron used £9m of taxpayers money to print and distribute to every elector in the UK promising to implement the outcome of the referendum.  Instead almost immediately after the referendum he and Osborne resigned. 

The Conservative Parliamentary Party, after a period of unprecedented backstabbing and careerist manoeuvring managed to choose two candidates for leadership, Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May, both of whom it seems lacked any personal leadership qualities whatsoever. 

The forgettable Andrea Leadsom when subjected to some nasty criticism over her comments about having children giving her motivation to do the best for the country, apparently spent the weekend in tears before giving up her leadership challenge (and was ironically rewarded by being made the Minister in charge of waterworks and floods!).

Theresa May was then anointed as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister on the back of promising to implement Brexit with her opaque slogan of “Brexit means Brexit”.  Since then we have been treated to a series of broken promises on top of her longstanding track record of claiming to support reducing immigration to the tens of thousands, when in fact allowing the largest influx of immigrants since Blair swamped us with millions of Eastern Europeans! 

Here are just some of Theresa’s whoppers (with acknowledgment to Guido Fawkes):-

“She broke her promises on calling an election and not triggering Article 50 until the UK had an agreed strategy – two decisions that the history books will not look upon kindly. She promised to put Dexeu in charge of the negotiation and make sure a Brexiteer was doing Brexit – that didn’t happen. She promised not to raise taxes – tax rises are coming in the autumn to fund her NHS splurge.

“There should be no general election until 2020.” General election: 8 May 2017.

“There should be no decision to invoke Article 50 until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear.” Article 50 triggered: 29 March 2017. Cabinet Brexit strategy agreed: 7 July 2018.

“If before 2020 there is a choice between further spending cuts, more borrowing and tax rises, the priority must be to avoid tax increases since they would disrupt consumption, employment and investment.” NHS spending increase, funded by “us as a country contributing a bit more [tax]” 17 June 2018.

In her 2017 party conference speech May made the promise again: “With our economic foundation strong – and economic confidence restored – the time has come to focus on Britain’s next big economic challenge: to foster growth that works for everyone, right across our country. That means keeping taxes low.”

“I will therefore create a new government department responsible for conducting Britain’s negotiation with the EU and for supporting the rest of Whitehall in its European work. That department will be led by a senior Secretary of State – and I will make sure that the position is taken by a Member of Parliament who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.” Theresa May takes personal charge of Brexit talks: 24th July 2018.

“Now is not the time for me to set out my full negotiating principles – that will come later.” Not sure people would have inferred two years later.

“I will dedicate my premiership to fixing this problem [housing]…

 as Prime Minister I am going to make it my mission to solve this problem. I will take personal charge of the government’s response, and make the British Dream a reality by reigniting home ownership in Britain once again.” We’re on our second Housing Secretary this year, a damp squib of a housing policy and silence from May…

“The Conservative Party can come together – and under my leadership it will.” (sic!)

You can see why Tory members might have quite liked her promises to stay true to Brexit and not raise taxes are disillusioned now! Who isn’t?

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/theresa-mays-promises-to-tory-members-then-and-now/

Article called “Pale, Male and Stale?” reported to the Police as a Hate Crime.

Article called “Pale, Male and Stale?” reported to the Police as a Hate Crime.

I am setting out below my correspondence with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) over a blog item entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” by Lisa Hornung.  Having got no satisfaction I then reported both the Organisation and the author to the police.

Here is the correspondence with the NCVO and the police:-

4^th May 2018

NCVO

Society Building

8 All Saints Street

London

N1 9RL

                                               

Dear Sir

Re:  Your Blog article Entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” - complaint

I refer to the blog article appearing on the NCVO’s website found here >>> https://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2018/04/23/pale-male-and-stale-three-things-i-learned-doing-research-on-diversity-and-volunteering/?_cldee=ZWFo

entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” 

This is an expression which is both sexist, racist and ageist and insulting, abusive and grossly offensive against older white men.  Lisa Hornung also makes the fundamental error of stating that charities should be run to make “diversity a top priority”.

Anyone involved in running a charity ought to know that “Diversity” is not the primary objective.  The primary objective of a charity is to be run to achieve its charitable purposes.  “Diversity” if it is to be considered to be an objective at all, is certainly no more than a second or third order objective.  Of course what Liza

Hornung means by this comment, which is contrary to the fundamental Laws of Charity here in England, is that charities should, in her Leftist, Internationalist political world view be run in such a way as to conform with her view rather than in accordance with English Law and practice. 

Taken together this article and the relevant tweet on the NCVO’s twitter account which reads as below are anti-White, anti-male, anti-older comments which are grossly offensive, abusive and insulting both within the meaning of Section’s 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and contrary to within the meaning of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

“NCVO

Our researcher @ncvolisa looks at the lack of diversity in volunteering, and how we can address it: blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2018/04/23/pal

Pale, male and stale?

1.25am – 30 Apr 2018”

I am hereby making a formal complaint against your organisation generally and Ms Hornung in particular.  I shall consider your response and in the light of that make a decision as to whether to report this matter to the police as a “Hate Speech” Crime.

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook

Director

Letter received from National Council for Voluntary Organisations dated Friday, 11^th May 2018

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Re:  Complaint reference 4/05/18/1

Your letter of 4 May was referred to me in line with our complaints policy and I have reviewed your concerned.

The phrase you refer to is used as a shorthand for the issue under discussion, as befits the headline of an article.  It is not used in an abusive or insulting manner.  Indeed, the blog post title is deliberately phrased as a question, and the answer that the blog post sets out is that this ‘civic core’ contribute greatly through their volunteering.

You object to the recommendation in the blog post that organisations wishing to address a lack of diversity may wish to make doing so a top priority.  It is NCVO’s firm and long-held view that organisations are made stronger by involving people of all ages and backgrounds and that seeking to enhance the diversity of volunteers is a positive move for any charity.

You may like to note that the Charity Commission is of a similar view:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charities-must-do-more-to-promote-diversity-on-their-boards-new-research-shows

In conclusion, I am content that NCVO and our staff have acted entirely appropriately and that the blog post raises no credible grounds for complaint.

If you are not satisfied with this response, our complaints policy gives you the opportunity to have it reviewed.  Should you wish to do so, please contact the complaints coordinator, Tracy Kiernan, at this address.

Regards

Aidan Warner

External Relations Manager

NCVO

And my reply: dated 29^th May 2018

Mr Aiden Warner

External Relations Manager

NCVO

Society Building

8 All Saints Street

London  N1 9RL

Dear Sir

Re:  Complaint Reference 4/05/18/1

Thank you for your letter of the 11^th May. 

We do not agree with your characterisation of what is clearly a racist, ageist and sexist “Hate Speech” Crime.  In the circumstances we shall be reporting your organisation and Ms Hornung to the police with a view to prosecution. 

On the subject of diversity; what you and the Charity Commission have said is merely a subjective political assertion, as would be the counter assertion that homogeneity gives organisational coherence and strength. 

These are matters of political and philosophical debate and do not negate the laws against “Hate Speech”.

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Director

From: Robin Tilbrook

Sent: 30 May 2018 16:10
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident

Dear Sir

Re:  Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident

I wish to report both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and also Ms Lisa Hornung, the author, for her blog item on the NCVO’s website found here >>>  >>>  https://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2018/04/23/pale-male-and-stale-three-things-i-learned-doing-research-on-diversity-and-volunteering/?_cldee=ZWFo ;entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?”  Such a remark is anti-white, racist, anti-man, sexist, anti-older people and ageist.  It was also put out on their Facebook and Twitter accounts.

We have made a complaint to NCVO and set out below the contents of our letter which explains my reasoning.  This offending article and the supporting Facebook and Twitter postings were publicised, inter alia, in Essex.

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

Director

English Lobby

“Protecting English Culture and Values”

A not for profit lobbying organization

From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:23
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident 

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email, if you wish to report a hate incident then I’m afraid that you will either need to call into Essex Police on 101 and press the option to report a crime please be aware our phone lines are very busy and there is usually a wait or if you have access to the internet please report it on line on the below link.

https://report.police.uk/

Kind Regards

Essex Police

Crime Bureau

From: Robin Tilbrook
To: Crime.bureau
Sent: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:47
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident 

Dear Sir

RE:  Report of “Hate Crime” incident

Thank you for your email. 

I have reported Hate Crimes to you via email before.  What is different about this one?

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook

Director 

English Lobby

“Protecting English Culture and Values”

A not for profit lobbying organization

MR ROBIN TILBROOK Quires Green, Walls Green Ongar Essex CM5 0QP

Date: 01/06/2018 Crime Ref: 42/76534/18

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

I am writing about the crime you reported to us on 30/05/2018.

The details of this offence have been recorded and allocated Crime Reference Number: 42/76534/18.

Crime can be both emotionally and physically traumatic for victims, resulting in a considerable amount of distress. If you feel the need for confidential support or assistance, please contact Victim Support on 0808 1689111.

We are carrying out further investigations and we may be in contact with you if we need to obtain any additional information.

Should you require any further advice or have any additional information regarding this investigation please telephone the police non-emergency number 101. Please quote your crime reference number in all correspondence.

Yours sincerely

PSE 76567 James Swatton
Essex Police

Code of Practice for Victims of Crime

The code of Practice for Victims of Crime sets out the services to be provided to victims of criminal conduct by criminal justice organisations in England and Wales.

Enhanced entitlements are provided to victims of the most serious crime, persistently targeted victims and vulnerable or intimidated victims.

You can find out more about the Victims code of Practice at:

• Read the full Victims Code of Practice

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-code-of-practice-for-victims-of-crime

• Download the leaflet for ‘Information for Victims of Crime’

www.gov.uk/government/publications/leaflet-for-victims-reporting-a-crime-resource-for-police-forces

• Making a Victim Personal Statement

www.gov.uk/government/publications/victim-personal-statement

• More Information on Crime, Justice & the Law

www.gov.uk/browse/justice

www.gov.uk/your-rights-after-crime

• Get support as a Victim of Crime

www.gov.uk/get-support-as-a-victim-of-crime

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

John Denham, the former Labour Cabinet Minister, who since leaving Parliament has become a Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University and who has been leading a campaign for Labour to take England and the English nation much more seriously instead of dismissing both as symptoms of racism, has recently given a speech setting out where he now is on the issue of English nationalism.  Here is the link to his speech >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zun7oTXMNPg&feature=youtu.be

You will see he does now call for an English Parliament although he hasn’t as yet got a separate electoral system for it.  He is thinking that this can develop as a process of reform, rather than move straightaway to a full separate English Parliament. 

I don’t think that this halfway separate parliament is a constitutionally viable proposal. I also understand that the Constitution Unit of University College London also don’t think that that is a viable option.  It is nevertheless an important step in the right direction for such a senior Labour figure to call for an English Parliament. 

John Denham has of course been lambasted by the Left and by various others supposedly on the Right, who in fact turn out to be anti any element of Englishness (often because of their own ethnic origins).

The other key point which John Denham makes that is worth considering is that he thinks that the failure to allow a proper voice for the English Nation has led to people who are basically English nationalists but perhaps in many cases haven’t fully realised it, to have, in psychological terms, “transferred” the object of their frustrations from the real cause which is the British Political Establishment, on instead to the EU.  He suggests that this “transfer” has therefore led to the Brexit vote.

Mr Denham then goes on to suggest that those Unionists who were most involved blocking any proper expression of Englishness are to a large extent responsible for the Brexit vote.  That is an interesting ironic thought!

Is David Lammy the supreme Remainiac clown?

Is David Lammy the supreme Remainiac clown?

David Lammy has recently written about his idea that Brexit being the Will of the People is “bollocks”.  Here is what he posted on the 27^th July:-

David Lammy

27 July at 16:36 ·

Why the government's "will of the people" Brexit mantra is bollocks:

1. Vote Leave cheated.
2. It was based on lies e.g. £350m for NHS.
3. Only 37% of the electorate voted for it.
4. Scotland & London voted against.
5. 69% say Brexit is going badly.
6. Public supports a #PeoplesVote.
7. Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against.
8. Russia interfered and influenced the result.
9. The referendum was advisory and non-binding.
10. The government has no mandate for Chequers or No Deal - the only options left on the table.

Here is what I have to say in reply to him:-

1. “Vote Leave cheated” – No they didn’t.  The fact of the matter is that the main “cheat” was by Remain, as the Electoral Commission has recently reported, with the £9m mailshot by the Government of their dodgy leaflet. 

The system of controls on spending are in any case politically motivated and amorally illegitimate attempt to stitch up the result.  Any minor breaches of the expenses rules are of no significance as regards the outcome.  Personally I think Remain’s concerted campaign between the various entities that were campaigning for Remain are a much clearer instance of breaking the spending rules than the piffling instances that have been brought against the Leave campaigns by an Electoral Commission that is rapidly becoming a byword for bias.  See >>> https://brexitcentral.com/priti-patel-dossier/

2. “It was based on lies e.g. £360m for NHS” – For any Remain campaigner to claim that the Leave campaign based itself on lies is a breath-taking hypocrisy, given the absolute blatant nonsense that the Remainers talked about the catastrophe that would be Brexit and misusing the machinery of government in order to produce such nonsense.  In fact the £360m a week for the NHS is a good political figure to use because it is justifiable and it usefully triggered idiots like David Lammy into arguing about the exact number of pounds that was going to the EU, whilst revealing to the public that even the Remain campaign accepted that it was a vast number of millions.

The political usefulness of the claim was to trigger Remainers to argue about the detail. The factual defensibility is that the £360million is the total going to the EU per week. The rebate comes back with strings attached so it couldn't be spent on the NHS. The NHS point is therefore key to the defensibility of this claim.  So far as England is concerned the rebate goes almost all to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in what is known as the EU 'Conduit Effect' so an English Nationalist could remove the NHS element of the claim and just add the expense of belonging to the EU to the £49 billion plus per year cost to English taxpayers of being in the Union of the UK.

3. “Only 37% of the electorate voted for it” – For David Lammy to make anything of that when no elected government has ever received the votes of 37% of the electorate, just shows the extent of his idiocy.  Since Parliament voted, including David Lammy, for a referendum in which this result would be decisive, his argument is not so much boll@cks as bullsh1t!

4. “Scotland and London voted against” – Is there any relevance to this comment?  So far as London is concerned London remains part of England which voted overwhelmingly to leave.   

So far as Scotland is concerned I am more than happy for them to make something of it and become independent.  The only relevance to his comment might be a definition of who the “People” are?  So far as I am concerned the only “People” that I am interested in are the English nation. England was and remains overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. 

5.  “69% say Brexit is going badly” – Given the ridiculous incompetence, dishonest and lack of patriotism of the Conservative Government I agree they are making a mess.  If you follow my blog then you will have seen that I am rather licking my lips at the prospect of seeing the dying body of the Conservative Party circled by hungry vultures! 

6. “Public supports a #peoplesvote” – No they don’t.  We have already had a People’s Vote and that is it.

7.  “Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against” – I don’t believe that Brexit does threaten any peace in Northern Ireland.  One of Theresa May’s many mistakes was to get involved in commitments over Northern Ireland which she was never going to be able to deliver, given that she is dependent upon the DUP following her ludicrous decision to have a General Election when she didn’t need it. 

As an English nationalist I am more than happy for Northern Ireland to either become a separate independent state or to join with Southern Ireland.  In any case what opinion polls do show is that most English people would prefer to lose Northern Ireland rather than lose Brexit.  I would certainly agree with that opinion!

8.  “Russia interfered and influenced results” – Ridiculous nonsense for which there is no evidence of any actual influence.  Given our history it is utter hypercritical of British politicians to complain about outside interference.  Blithering on about this is probably however a measure of Remainer desperation!

For a well written and thoughtful  explanation of the result read >>>> https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

9.  “The referendum was advisory and not binding” – Given the way that the British constitution is fitted together that remark, from a legalistic point of view, would have to be true of almost any democratic input. The issue is about legitimacy of the Establishment.  If the mask drops and the Establishment proves that voting doesn’t achieve anything, the only sensible future recourse is to the natural way of settling disputes i.e. force. 

10. “The Government has no mandate for Chequers or no deal – the only options left on the table” – I agree that the Government has no mandate for Chequers but it certainly has a mandate for “no deal”.  The mandate is, and it is a mandate from both political parties which also campaigned on this at the last General Election, to implement Brexit in full and unequivocally.  Personally I will be very happy with a “no deal” outcome. 

More generally I think David Lammy falls into the category of the type of Leftist that is simply not a democrat and therefore rather likes the internationalist, multi-culturalist, statist elitism of the EU.  So I am not surprised that he is on the side of remaining in the EU at all costs and of welshing on the Labour Party’s manifesto in the last election previous commitments to an in/out referendum.  David Lammy is not only thick but also dishonest. 

The perfect illustration of David Lammy’s intellectual initiative is shown in his staged appearance on Celebrity Mastermind where he was thrown as many soft balls as possible to try and build him up but he still flunked it! 

Here is the priceless link to Lammy's lamentable Mastermind performance. 

The 13-Point Mastermind:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWwyVQ2IQuE▶

Enjoy!