To quote from the link you posted:

This is the remarkable call from a four-time Ukip candidate to James O'Brien that left LBC listeners speechless.

James was asking why it could possibly be a bad thing for MPs to have a say if we can only get a rotten deal from the EU.

Then Philip called up and LBC listeners all stopped what they were doing in disbelief.

James asked him: "They say 'We must have the right to apply the brake if it becomes absolutely obvious that we're driving into a burning building.'

"And you say 'No, even if we're driving into a burning building, we must absolutely not have a brake'?"

Philip responded: "Yes, I agree.

James then asked: "You did hear the words that came out of my mouth, right?"

Philip told James that his hometown Sandbach was 98% white, but he was worried by the number of Somalians who have come to Britain on Dutch passports, something that made him vote for Brexit.

Afterwards, listeners tweeted about how remarkable the call was.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

?

The whole piece is about how terrible this guy is because his objection to Brexit was based upon racial grounds....Then the figure for whites was given for his town....98 percent.

So I reply to you stating that O'Brien himself lives in a 70 percent white area in a city packed full of extremely diverse areas with a white percent average of 44 percent.

Then you accuse me of racism for observing this hypocrisy.

Very low energy lightbulb indeed.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jun 2018 8.41pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Please provide a link from a credible source, as there is nothing I can find on the internet that backs your claim.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Please tell me what the abbreviation means.

Yesterday in the House of Commons the only thing missing was Brian Rix. For the younger readers he was the star of the aptly named Whitehall farces.

1. SNP leader ordered to leave the chamber after refusing to sit down. He does and takes his party with him. This was a childish political stunt, the Speaker had already offered him the opportunity to vote and debate after PMQ was over. But like a child he wanted his way NOW. I don't think this has done the SNP any favours and most people will see it for what it was.

2. Labour rebels. Corbyn's party was like a gymnast doing the splits all over the place. He had rebels both for and against Brexit. It's not a surprise but it does show that Labour are just as divided as the Tories. The idea that a Corbyn government could resolve the Brexit question better than the Tories is just nonsense. He faces the same type of problems as PM May does. Its a bit hard to argue that the government is divided when you have 70 plus rebels in your own party.

3. Dominic Greive. Well the Tories are in a mess as well. So after wringing concessions (what are they?) Why was DG at the EU headquarters, was this official business or mischief making? Should we not have a parliamentary enquiry? Remainers love those when it suits them but as they control most of the key committees I am not holding my breath.

Conclusion. Well after 2 days and many votes yet again PM May has kicked the can down the road. At some point she has to make a stand against the EU and her own rebels. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that we are being sold down the river and will not get the Brexit we voted for. Hopefully I am wrong like a lot of people I just want them to get on with it and stop delaying the inevitable.

Edited by Badger11 (14 Jun 2018 7.58am)

One more point

[Link]

Having problems with the link, but if you go to yesterday (13th June) Politics Live and got to Pages 5 and 6. Text of the amendment is reproduced word for word. Take by number of MPs also given. Admittedly they are remain MPs the ones quoted, but that doesn't mean their powers of analysis are not reasonable enough to work out what the amendment effectively means. You can also draw your own conclusion on the implications of the legal text.

Basically says the govt must not compromise the GFA, have due regard for clause 49 in the phase 1 agreement and the act will not authorise any kind of border infrastructure.

Edited by CambridgeEagle (14 Jun 2018 10.24am)

Edited by CambridgeEagle (14 Jun 2018 10.26am)