Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 12:25 pm**

The FTA would have carved off NI into a similar arrangement that the backstop ensures. Serial liars like IDS and BoJo willfully misrepresent the FTA offer as being inclusive of the whole of the UK. This is false. Ireland will not accept a hard border, as is their right to do.

The UK wide backstop was insisted upon by May in order to prevent NI from being carved off. I don't have much time at all for May, but she believes strongly in the constitutional integrity of the Union and has made that a consistent priority. Unfortunately for her, that means she has to operate in the real world, an obligation that Johnson and Mogg are blissfully free of.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 12:50 pm**

point nine one eight wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:13 am
EH16 wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 8:50 am
point nine one eight wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 2:53 am
Didn't claim I had spoke to 17 M people. However unlike you I speak to the public everyday, since before and after the referendum, during run up to referendum it was clear what the public was thinking and how they would vote, you are just another remoaner who clearly thought they know better and can't stand the fact Joe Soap knows better than you
Is it really any wonder I consider myself smarter than you when you continue to make unsupported assertions.

However unlike you I speak to the public everyday, - you have no knowledge of what I do every day, you're just making a statement with no basis in fact.

it was clear what the public was thinking First, not that clear since the vote was NOT the massive majority people like you are now making it out to be. Second, have you STILL not grasped that what leavers were thinking was based on A COMPLETE PACK OF LIES

Joe Soap knows better than you No, he doesn't (see above re A COMPLETE PACK OF LIES)
If you were in close contact with the public how come you couldn't see they were going to vote brexit. How much of a win do you want for you to accept democracy, Do you remember the pack of lies in the government leaflet sent to us all illegally, promising us all an emergency budget within days, mass unemployment, failing economy disaster all round, we was even promised a third world war, this was project fear which Joe Soap saw through and rejected soundly. It was a disgrace that a British government set out to scare the population with all their lies, but you Conveniently forget that.

If you were in close contact with the public I didn't say I was or wasn't. I simply challenged you for trying making an assertion, for which you had no factual basis, sound like truth.

How much of a win do you want for you to accept democracy, I have accepted it. We (the UK) voted to leave and that's what we're doing. You're the one being undemocratic by refusing to accept my personal right to continue believing that it was a misguided decision. I'll live with it but I still think it was wrong.

Joe Soap saw through and rejected soundly Not true. The majority to leave was small.

It was a disgrace that a British government set out to scare the population with all their lies And you STILL think the leave campaign didn't use scare tactics and lies?

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 12:55 pm**

Indeed. We were offered a free trade deal right at the start of the negotiations. At the start of those negotiations TM went in with conviction and with Nick Timothy pulling the strings it started off well enough. In one speech May talked about cutting regulations and it was the first and only time the EU blinked. Red White and blue brexit and no deal is better than a bad deal were sound bites but at least it gave an air of authority. Then it all went to sh*t. TM bottle went, she did what all politicians do and started to freeze herself to the center circle. She binned nick Timothy and got in Ollie Robbins who has spent his who life as europhile. Her red lines started to evaporate and in the end she was on her hands begging to Germany. Her back bench MP’s made a lot of noise but not one has crossed the floor. Not one. The Tory party called it on with Cameron and then failed to deliver with May. For that, they will,cease to exist as a political force. Perhaps forever.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 1:00 pm**

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:57 am The government has tried to take us out of the EU three times already. It is the hard Brexiteers on the Tory right, who are looking to protect their reputations by standing behind the impossibility of what they promised, that have blocked it.

Prioritising exit over every other consideration is such an obviously terrible policy that it's hard to argue against. It's total fantasy. If Brexit were to be a success, i think you'd need a few years to take a proper run at it, making the correct preparations and having a clear negotiation line agreed internally. Instead it's a process being totally dominated by emotion and the child like delusion that Brexit is merely a question of political will, of wanting it enough.

The conspiratorial tone of all this is f*cked frankly. There's no bringing the country back together when a huge chunk of it is convinced that every gear of the nation state is collaborating in a plot against them. That's how democracies erode.

Yup, that makes a lot of sense. The longer this farce goes on I fear that a larger proportion of voters, fired up by the right wing media, will become even more dogged in the "we voted out and that means out" stance. This mantra, simplistic and easy for many to gather behind, totally ignores the scale & complexity of project Brexit. Whilst I have a modicum of sympathy for this stance, because the first vote was worded so badly, it obviously should have been followed with a delayed second vote on what the deal options actually were following exhaustive research/planning/negotiation. Because this phase 2, the research/planning/negotiation, was completely fecked up by the government it has allowed the hard-liners and opportunists to make hay with only their own self-advancement as their end goal. How do we get out of this mess - feck knows. I don't know any politician who could successfully argue that the first vote is 100% acknowledged - that's the first thing to get across. Then the next, much harder, bit is convincing the whole electorate that the logical, and wholly necessary, stage is to now explain what options are available - not just the headline vote options but what they really mean for the country. I live in hope but no great expectation.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 2:18 pm**

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:57 am The government has tried to take us out of the EU three times already.

Paying the EU between £39bn and £60bn and signing a treaty, legally binding in international law, drafted by French lawyers on behalf of the European Union which:

incarcerates the UK in the Customs Union (and therefore unable to agree its own deals with the rest of the World);

enshrines in law the UK's "associate membership" of the European Union, therefore utterly compromising the UK's sovereignty;

creates a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, therefore destroying the United Kingdom (the EU's forfeit for having the temerity to leave);

obliges British police to arrest people deemed to have committed "political offences" (note the earlier observation of an European Court of Justice's Advocate General that "Criticism of the EU is akin to blasphemy");

binds the UK to all future legislation of the ECJ;

prevents any future UK attempt to renounce the Treaty;

permanently relinquishes control of the UK's tax policy and agricultural subsidies (with fishing rights still to be determined);

establishes "participating status" on the UK to make it liable for any future bail-outs;

permits the ECJ and European Commission to determine, without discussion or agreement, the amounts the UK would need to pay each of the EU bodies which the Treaty would commit the UK to joining;

grants preferential employment treatment to EU members states' citizens over all other countries;

obliges the UK to fund and provide armed service personnel to any future military engagements the EU embarks upon;

commits the UK to providing "sensitive information" about its citizens to a central EU database, and,

worryingly, as stated in Article 18 of the Protocol: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate measures.” Therefore, in the event of any kind of disturbance, the EU has the right to act unilaterally in any way it sees fit

is not leaving the European Union.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 2:23 pm**

Bear dogs it went sh*t cos she bottled it, like she bottled the general election. I've never seen a PM crumble like she did as soon as the pressure came down.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 2:33 pm**

Flying Hippo wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 2:18 pm
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:57 am The government has tried to take us out of the EU three times already.
Paying the EU between £39bn and £60bn and signing a treaty, legally binding in international law, drafted by French lawyers on behalf of the European Union which:

incarcerates the UK in the Customs Union (and therefore unable to agree its own deals with the rest of the World);

enshrines in law the UK's "associate membership" of the European Union, therefore utterly compromising the UK's sovereignty;

creates a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, therefore destroying the United Kingdom (the EU's forfeit for having the temerity to leave);

obliges British police to arrest people deemed to have committed "political offences" (note the earlier observation of an European Court of Justice's Advocate General that "Criticism of the EU is akin to blasphemy");

binds the UK to all future legislation of the ECJ;

prevents any future UK attempt to renounce the Treaty;

permanently relinquishes control of the UK's tax policy and agricultural subsidies (with fishing rights still to be determined);

establishes "participating status" on the UK to make it liable for any future bail-outs;

permits the ECJ and European Commission to determine, without discussion or agreement, the amounts the UK would need to pay each of the EU bodies which the Treaty would commit the UK to joining;

grants preferential employment treatment to EU members states' citizens over all other countries;

obliges the UK to fund and provide armed service personnel to any future military engagements the EU embarks upon;

commits the UK to providing "sensitive information" about its citizens to a central EU database, and,

worryingly, as stated in Article 18 of the Protocol: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate measures.” Therefore, in the event of any kind of disturbance, the EU has the right to act unilaterally in any way it sees fit
is not leaving the European Union.

It all sounds very complicated. Can't we just stay in?

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 3:40 pm**

Thor wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:46 am
Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:10 am
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:02 am

Ah, so you're not actually interested in people having their say? Thanks for clarifying.

For goodness sake!
People HAD their say with the original referendum. That was democracy and the result should have been carried out. No ifs no buts.
What IS your problem in not accepting the result?
This exactly.

Trouble with PJ and people like him they want what they want and so they want to ignore the democratic will of the people cos it don't fit in with their agenda. If leave had lost then I'd have been, cool it's done we move on.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 3:47 pm**

point nine one eight wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 3:40 pm
Thor wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:46 am
Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:10 am
For goodness sake!
People HAD their say with the original referendum. That was democracy and the result should have been carried out. No ifs no buts.
What IS your problem in not accepting the result?
This exactly.

Trouble with PJ and people like him they want what they want and so they want to ignore the democratic will of the people cos it don't fit in with their agenda. If leave had lost then I'd have been, cool it's done we move on.

To clarify, you had your say along with the rest of the country, the majority clearly didn't believe the government, you just can't understand Joe Soap not agreeing with you

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 3:57 pm**

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 2:33 pm
Flying Hippo wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 2:18 pm
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:57 am The government has tried to take us out of the EU three times already.
Paying the EU between £39bn and £60bn and signing a treaty, legally binding in international law, drafted by French lawyers on behalf of the European Union which:

incarcerates the UK in the Customs Union (and therefore unable to agree its own deals with the rest of the World);

enshrines in law the UK's "associate membership" of the European Union, therefore utterly compromising the UK's sovereignty;

creates a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, therefore destroying the United Kingdom (the EU's forfeit for having the temerity to leave);

obliges British police to arrest people deemed to have committed "political offences" (note the earlier observation of an European Court of Justice's Advocate General that "Criticism of the EU is akin to blasphemy");

binds the UK to all future legislation of the ECJ;

prevents any future UK attempt to renounce the Treaty;

permanently relinquishes control of the UK's tax policy and agricultural subsidies (with fishing rights still to be determined);

establishes "participating status" on the UK to make it liable for any future bail-outs;

permits the ECJ and European Commission to determine, without discussion or agreement, the amounts the UK would need to pay each of the EU bodies which the Treaty would commit the UK to joining;

grants preferential employment treatment to EU members states' citizens over all other countries;

obliges the UK to fund and provide armed service personnel to any future military engagements the EU embarks upon;

commits the UK to providing "sensitive information" about its citizens to a central EU database, and,

worryingly, as stated in Article 18 of the Protocol: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate measures.” Therefore, in the event of any kind of disturbance, the EU has the right to act unilaterally in any way it sees fit
is not leaving the European Union.
It all sounds very complicated. Can't we just stay in?

No because the people have spoken.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 3:58 pm**

slacker wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 12:04 pm I agree with Prop J a confirmatory vote on the 3 main options: a soft leave deal like May’s or whatever she can agree with Labour, crash out with no deal, or remain (but keep steering clear of further political federalism), with a STV to establish 2nd choice, is the best way out of this mess. And I wasn’t a remain voter either.

I'm all up for throwing it back to the thickies but this three way vote clearly isn't fair.

It obviously needs to be structured some other way.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 4:29 pm**

Flying Hippo wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 2:18 pm
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:57 am The government has tried to take us out of the EU three times already.
Paying the EU between £39bn and £60bn and signing a treaty, legally binding in international law, drafted by French lawyers on behalf of the European Union which:

incarcerates the UK in the Customs Union (and therefore unable to agree its own deals with the rest of the World);

enshrines in law the UK's "associate membership" of the European Union, therefore utterly compromising the UK's sovereignty;

creates a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, therefore destroying the United Kingdom (the EU's forfeit for having the temerity to leave);

obliges British police to arrest people deemed to have committed "political offences" (note the earlier observation of an European Court of Justice's Advocate General that "Criticism of the EU is akin to blasphemy");

binds the UK to all future legislation of the ECJ;

prevents any future UK attempt to renounce the Treaty;

permanently relinquishes control of the UK's tax policy and agricultural subsidies (with fishing rights still to be determined);

establishes "participating status" on the UK to make it liable for any future bail-outs;

permits the ECJ and European Commission to determine, without discussion or agreement, the amounts the UK would need to pay each of the EU bodies which the Treaty would commit the UK to joining;

grants preferential employment treatment to EU members states' citizens over all other countries;

obliges the UK to fund and provide armed service personnel to any future military engagements the EU embarks upon;

commits the UK to providing "sensitive information" about its citizens to a central EU database, and,

worryingly, as stated in Article 18 of the Protocol: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate measures.” Therefore, in the event of any kind of disturbance, the EU has the right to act unilaterally in any way it sees fit
is not leaving the European Union.

Are you sure this isnt bollox? Thought the withdrawal agreement did NOT involve a customs union?

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 4:57 pm**

CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 3:58 pm
slacker wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 12:04 pm I agree with Prop J a confirmatory vote on the 3 main options: a soft leave deal like May’s or whatever she can agree with Labour, crash out with no deal, or remain (but keep steering clear of further political federalism), with a STV to establish 2nd choice, is the best way out of this mess. And I wasn’t a remain voter either.
I'm all up for throwing it back to the thickies but this three way vote clearly isn't fair.

It obviously needs to be structured some other way.

Why is it not fair?

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 5:23 pm**

slacker wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 12:04 pm To Winchy & Co: But it was a too-simple binary remain/leave choice, whilst the actual choices (both sides, really) was far more complex than that. And the very close 52/48 result means to me we shouldn’t be pursuing an extreme leave option.

Even Farage was touting the Norway option during the referendum, and only since has he been blathering on about no deal instead. I agree with Prop J a confirmatory vote on the 3 main options: a soft leave deal like May’s or whatever she can agree with Labour, crash out with no deal, or remain (but keep steering clear of further political federalism), with a STV to establish 2nd choice, is the best way out of this mess. And I wasn’t a remain voter either.

Very close? A majority of 1,269,501. The largest ever vote. What more do you want?

Some one recently pointed out that it ONLY required a 'swing' of 634,751, from Leave to Remain votes, to let the Remainers win.

True but that would have given a single vote figure victory to Remainers but NO ONE would have accepted that.

The swing would have to be much more than double that to satisfy the Remainers as they claim the majority of 1,269,501 to Leavers is tiny and far too small.

Therefore they would probably have wanted the winning side to have an even larger majority of say 2,500,000.

To achieve that over, 3,000,000 Leavers would have had to have had a change of heart and voted to Remain rather than Leave.

That would not, and indeed, did not happen and with the staggering current support for the Brexit party the truth is the Leavers are still in a minority.

Just accept the original result and move on.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 5:56 pm**

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 4:57 pm
CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 3:58 pm
slacker wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 12:04 pm I agree with Prop J a confirmatory vote on the 3 main options: a soft leave deal like May’s or whatever she can agree with Labour, crash out with no deal, or remain (but keep steering clear of further political federalism), with a STV to establish 2nd choice, is the best way out of this mess. And I wasn’t a remain voter either.
I'm all up for throwing it back to the thickies but this three way vote clearly isn't fair.

It obviously needs to be structured some other way.
Why is it not fair?

Oh come on, it clearly splits the Leave vote.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 5:58 pm**

Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:23 pm
slacker wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 12:04 pm To Winchy & Co: But it was a too-simple binary remain/leave choice, whilst the actual choices (both sides, really) was far more complex than that. And the very close 52/48 result means to me we shouldn’t be pursuing an extreme leave option.

Even Farage was touting the Norway option during the referendum, and only since has he been blathering on about no deal instead. I agree with Prop J a confirmatory vote on the 3 main options: a soft leave deal like May’s or whatever she can agree with Labour, crash out with no deal, or remain (but keep steering clear of further political federalism), with a STV to establish 2nd choice, is the best way out of this mess. And I wasn’t a remain voter either.
Very close? A majority of 1,269,501. The largest ever vote. What more do you want?

Some one recently pointed out that it ONLY required a 'swing' of 634,751, from Leave to Remain votes, to let the Remainers win.

True but that would have given a single vote figure victory to Remainers but NO ONE would have accepted that.

The swing would have to be much more than double that to satisfy the Remainers as they claim the majority of 1,269,501 to Leavers is tiny and far too small.

Therefore they would probably have wanted the winning side to have an even larger majority of say 2,500,000.

To achieve that over, 3,000,000 Leavers would have had to have had a change of heart and voted to Remain rather than Leave.

That would not, and indeed, did not happen and with the staggering current support for the Brexit party the truth is the Leavers are still in a minority.

Just accept the original result and move on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 6:25 pm**

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 2:33 pm
Flying Hippo wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 2:18 pm
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 11:57 am The government has tried to take us out of the EU three times already.
Paying the EU between £39bn and £60bn and signing a treaty, legally binding in international law, drafted by French lawyers on behalf of the European Union which:

incarcerates the UK in the Customs Union (and therefore unable to agree its own deals with the rest of the World);

enshrines in law the UK's "associate membership" of the European Union, therefore utterly compromising the UK's sovereignty;

creates a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, therefore destroying the United Kingdom (the EU's forfeit for having the temerity to leave);

obliges British police to arrest people deemed to have committed "political offences" (note the earlier observation of an European Court of Justice's Advocate General that "Criticism of the EU is akin to blasphemy");

binds the UK to all future legislation of the ECJ;

prevents any future UK attempt to renounce the Treaty;

permanently relinquishes control of the UK's tax policy and agricultural subsidies (with fishing rights still to be determined);

establishes "participating status" on the UK to make it liable for any future bail-outs;

permits the ECJ and European Commission to determine, without discussion or agreement, the amounts the UK would need to pay each of the EU bodies which the Treaty would commit the UK to joining;

grants preferential employment treatment to EU members states' citizens over all other countries;

obliges the UK to fund and provide armed service personnel to any future military engagements the EU embarks upon;

commits the UK to providing "sensitive information" about its citizens to a central EU database, and,

worryingly, as stated in Article 18 of the Protocol: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate measures.” Therefore, in the event of any kind of disturbance, the EU has the right to act unilaterally in any way it sees fit
is not leaving the European Union.
It all sounds very complicated. Can't we just stay in?

If we stay in a proportion of that would probably still apply to us.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 6:33 pm**

Anyone know if we had a customs union, would we then get all the trade deals the EU does with other countries?

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 6:45 pm**

CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:56 pm
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 4:57 pm
CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 3:58 pm

I'm all up for throwing it back to the thickies but this three way vote clearly isn't fair.

It obviously needs to be structured some other way.
Why is it not fair?
Oh come on, it clearly splits the Leave vote.

Ok, have 4 options then, even it up.

Leave with no deal
Leave with a deal
Remain
Don't remain

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 6:56 pm**

Going back to the original point, I saw the Farage on Marr interview, and I also saw Farage interviewed by Huw Edwards today on the BBC News Channel. The feeling I’m left with is Edwards came over as far more professional than Marr in the way he conducted the interview, and as a result it was far more watchable and with no aggro creeping in - that is how I’d expect BBC interviewers to behave.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 7:08 pm**

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 6:33 pm Anyone know if we had a customs union, would we then get all the trade deals the EU does with other countries?

We would not be able to as we would have to abide by the deals the EU sets.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 7:30 pm**

So we do? Does it also mean accepting fom?

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 7:36 pm**

CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 3:58 pm
slacker wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 12:04 pm I agree with Prop J a confirmatory vote on the 3 main options: a soft leave deal like May’s or whatever she can agree with Labour, crash out with no deal, or remain (but keep steering clear of further political federalism), with a STV to establish 2nd choice, is the best way out of this mess. And I wasn’t a remain voter either.
I'm all up for throwing it back to the thickies but this three way vote clearly isn't fair.

It obviously needs to be structured some other way.

So according to you, anyone who does not agree with you is a ''Thicky''
A very autocratic and smug viewpoint indeed which is far removed from the aims of the founders of the Labour party which was formed to represent the interests and needs of the many working class people of Britain.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 8:07 pm**

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 4:29 pm Are you sure this isnt bollox? Thought the withdrawal agreement did NOT involve a customs union?

Annexes 2 and 3 of the draft Withdrawal Agreement sets out the core rules governing the single customs territory. The UK commits itself to align with the EU’s Common External Tariff and Common Commercial Policy on trade in goods with third countries. The text also provides for the UK to remain within the EU’s trade defence regime for the duration of this Single Customs Territory regime.

Posted: **Tue May 14, 2019 8:26 pm**

CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:56 pm
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 4:57 pm
CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 3:58 pm

I'm all up for throwing it back to the thickies but this three way vote clearly isn't fair.

It obviously needs to be structured some other way.
Why is it not fair?
Oh come on, it clearly splits the Leave vote.

No it doesn't. Slacker is referencing the sensible use of a STV.

Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr

Re: Farage on Marr