The collapse of Thomas Cook

The Thomas Cook business has been short of cash for much of the last decade, with refinancings to keep it going. At the end it was decided the business was so short of money that it had to go into liquidation. If it had gone into Administration that would have been an expression of more hope of finding a buyer for it as a going concern after some new financial restructuring.

The senior management of the company said their aim was to make it the “most loved holiday company”. I doubt it is today. They wanted to take customers on a journey “from dream to experience”. The experience this week is not quite what customers had in mind. We were told in the last annual report that the “customer” is “at our heart”, and the employees put their ” heart into it”. Now the employees are out of a job.

In the last Report the Directors assured us they had stress tested its future viability as a business for a three year period. They said “the Directors have a reasonable expectation that the Group will be able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities as they fall due over the three year period of the assessment”

The Audit Committee also looked into viability and stated ” there are no material uncertainties as to the Group’s ability to operate as a going concern” drawing on the three year stress tests no doubt.

Finally the auditors wrote “We conclude that the use of the going concern basis of accounting is appropriate and concur with the Directors that no significant uncertainty has been identified”.

Thomas Cook did not short change the senior management when setting salaries and bonuses for them. People will be asking just how did this company fall so far and so fast this year after the positive statements made about it in the last Annual Report?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

194 Comments

  1. Mark B
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:18 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    Thank you for finally putting up my post from yesterday. Once again I broke no site rules, although, it was a little long, it turned out not much longer than some others. Oh ! And didn’t the Trolls do well. 😉

    The senior management of the company said their aim was to make it the “most loved holiday company”.

    This should have sent alarm bells ringing. The sole aims of any business is profitability and supplying the market with what they want. Fail in either of those two and your finished.

    Just like the high street in general the market place is changing. The business should have evolved and moved to more online transactions. Keeping a few shops or stalls open where it can provide a visible market presence.

    We talked yesterday about self-employed people and one area is that of growth is homeowners renting out rooms via online sites. This has an affect on hotels and travel agents.

    What I am concerned about is the cost of this to the UK taxpayer. Surely people must be covered with travel insurance.

    • Hope
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:27 am | Permalink

      Grant Shapps made the point on TV rounds it was not a critical business for U.K. Govt to save. Accepted. He was questioned why RBS would not lend Thomas Cook any more money after it was salvaged by the taxpayer itself. After all Fund to Lending schemes from HM govt was never passed on to business and prevented savers over ten years getting a good return on their money. In fact there were cases where the banks including RBS were letting good viable businesses go to the wall for profit!

      However, ten years on from the banking scandal no substantive reforms have been made by your Tory govt. and no one held responsible. The UK taxpayer being forced to accept the consequences of mismanagement and greed from bankers without any personal responsibility or accountability. Fred Goodwin draws a massive pension from a state owned RBS bank that he led to collapse. How can this be right?

      JR, therefore your comments in your last paragraph equally apply to banking and your govt over the last nine years have done nothing, just empty words and fake promises of reform. Explain to us why the directors of Thomas Cook should be any more or less held to account than the banking industry that your govt failed to address? Secondly, what EU state aid rules prevented help from HM Govt?

    • Everhopeful
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      Mark B
      Looks like you made pole position today! 😎

      • Mark B
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

        You mean I beat LL.

        😉

    • Mark B
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Sorry, off-topic.

      Apparently the law has been broken by the PM regarding prorogation. And that law would that be ? What sanction will the courts impose on those that have broken the law ? And how ironic that those who claim to be standing up for parliament to have its say over our laws, are so quiet as to the fact that many of our laws, including those who make them, are created on foreign soil and by unelected and unaccountable individuals.

      This is not sour grapes. The business of parliament is a political and constitutional matter and, the Supreme Court is not a Constitutional Court, or even a Star Chamber, so how can it simply decide that the PM and the government have acted illegally ? Utter farce !

      • Henry Carter
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        Courts decide if people have broken laws. It is their job. Would you be surprised if a window cleaner cleaned windows? it’s his job

        • NickC
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

          Henry C, What law has been broken?

        • Mark B
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

          What law did the government break ?

        • libertarian
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

          Henry

          Trouble is we can’t find out what law was broken as they never mentioned it in the judgement .

      • acorn
        Posted September 25, 2019 at 6:25 am | Permalink

        The UK along with Ireland are the only two Common Law countries in the EU. Common Law is Judge made Law.

        The UK has a Supreme Court with no written constitution to defend, hence the Judges decide, with the help of a few Statutes, what the constitution is until parliament decides otherwise. A system that degenerates into anarchy when the conventions that have held it together are overturned.

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      Mark B people are covered through ABTA, ATOL, Travel Insurance and credit card insurance. ATOL had around £165m cover in March 2018.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

        Cheers.

    • Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

      Thomson Travel Group was floated on the Stock Exchange in May 1998 and in 2000 it was acquired by German conglomerate Preussag which was renamed Tui in July 2002.
      TUI AG is an Anglo-German travel and tourism company headquartered in Hannover, Germany. It is the largest leisure, travel and tourism company in the world, and owns travel agencies, hotels, airlines, cruise ships and retail stores. The group owns six European airlines – the largest holiday fleet in Europe – and several tour operators based in Europe.
      17/12/2014 · Thomson holidays firm TUI Travel completed a merger with its German parent company, TUI AG today to create the world’s largest tour operator. …

      13/05/2015 · “QUOTE”

      “The historic Thomson brand will be phased out over the next few years as owner TUI Group ditches the name made famous by Britain’s love of package holidays.
      TUI Group, the world’s biggest travel firm behind Thomson and First Choice, said today it also plans to sell its LateRooms website by the end of the year.
      The rebranding, which will also mean the disappearance of First Choice, will happen gradually over several years, with the UK *****being the last country to migrate. From that point it will be known as TUI across all markets. *****
      The tie-up has made TUI the biggest travel firm in the world with more than 300 hotels, 136 planes and 1,800 shops across Europe selling holidays to 30million customers in 180 countries.
      But it also means that Thomson, along with First Choice and other European brands owed by TUI, are soon to disappear to be absorbed under the TUI brand.”
      The loss of jobs is bad now but imagine the fury if it had happened in 2015.

  2. formula57
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    The statutory auditors words ought not to be viewed as positive. The fact they were apparently actively considering whether or not the “going concern” concept should apply when drawing up the accounts is strongly indicative of a business in trouble. The auditors of course had the dilemma that a conclusion by them against applying the going concern concept would have immediately put the business in jeopardy.

    • Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:02 am | Permalink

      In situations like this with masses of cash washing about I could prove to you it was a going concern or break up the balance sheet and prove the opposite.

      One of the problems is that trade creditors get a sniff of cash flow difficulties and shorten/refuse further lines. This can happen almost over night and has the effect of instantly taking out cash, akin to cancelling an overdraft effectively cutting off the company’s ‘oxygen’

      • miami.mode
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:07 am | Permalink

        Agreed Nigl. It was reported that the credit card companies were withholding around £50 million. This must surely be a result of retailers not being able to charge extra for credit cards over debit cards even though it costs them extra.

        The extra for a credit cards was considered an insurance if the purchase went wrong.

      • acorn
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        Terry Smith wrote in his book; if you want to know how a company is doing, follow the cash. It is the lack of cash that kills businesses. The Cash Flow Statement (CFS) in company reports is the first thing you should look at. If the report doesn’t show the last three years at least, do some research.

        Don’t forget there are three parts to a CFS. Cash income from Operating Activities should be very positive. Investing Activities should be negative and Financing Activities should be negative.

  3. formula57
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    I came across a view on stress tests recently (made in the context of European banks) that said stress tests are not designed to determine stress, they are designed to fool the public as to how much stress there really is. Enough said!

  4. Dominic
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    John.

    Are you now working for the Guardian? Or maybe you’ve to pick up the anti-private sector torch along with Len McCluskey?

    It’s not a great look and it’s utterly unconvincing. You’re a politician and will act politically rather than rationally like most of us in the real world

    Thomas Cook’s been a dead company since the early 1990’s. It’s taken this long for it to die. It’s inability to adapt is testament to an outdated business model and the hubris of the management. I doubt there’s any corporate deception taking place here. One only had to read the interim and annual statements to see this company was on its knees

    When a Tory MP is using his blog to attack private sector management rather than anti-Semitism, the hate filled bile of Marxist Labour and their plans to destroy the UK then you’ve got to ask what exactly is happening in the Tory party?

    Reply This site is not a Conservative attack site on Labour and covers a wide range of economic , political and related matters to provide analysis and understanding. As I am such a disappointment to you I suggest you look elsewhere for the kind of material you wish to read.

    • Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:15 am | Permalink

      A little harsh but you are absolutely correct no one, indeed the Tory Party itself knows what it stands for. It seems to make policy up on the hoof on the basis of who can it upset the least/avoid at all costs any accusation of supporting ‘the profit motive’ . Theresa May invented the phrase the nasty party and like so much else she did it was manna to her opponents.

      At leat you know what you will get from Momentum.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:56 am | Permalink

        Your last line appears to be inaccurate.

        a) Momentum are only about thirty thousand out of Labour’s half-a-million members.

        b) As recent events at their conference show, Momentum’s strongly pro-Remain position is not reflected in party policy.

        c) Following from that, their general influence now appears to be weak.

        • NickC
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

          Martin, It’s too late for Momentum to have a “strongly pro-Remain position” – we had the Referendum in 2016 in which the people decided to Leave the EU. It is no longer up to MPs, still less a ……t group like Momentum.

        • libertarian
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

          Marty

          Yeh and about 100,000 “labour party members” are actually Tory and UKIP who paid £3 to join and elect the magic grandpa

      • Woody
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:08 am | Permalink

        Now after listening to the policy on the hoof tripe coming from the labour equivocation / conference that is the most farcical comment I’ve read on this site.

      • Hope
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

        The collapse of democracy through the Supreme Court is far more devastating. Perhaps an appeal to the ECJ?

        Cameron could have introduced changesto s lectionaries procedures in public sector and judiciary to bring balance he chose to follow socialist Blaire.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

          The ECJ has no jurisdiction in these matters, nor in most UK law.

        • Hope
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

          The Supreme Court (a creation of socialist Blaire) decision today marks a clear need for elected judges. They need to be scrutinised and vetted for suitability. Judiciary cannot be allowed to sabotage the will of the people.

          We see through the likes of Keir Starmer- who was head of CPS- that some of those in the legal profession have very strong political motivation. To suggest the court is blind is a nonsense.

          If I were Johnson I would prorogued again today. Stopping Bercow giving opposition to Brexit control over the executive against constitutional norms.

    • Gareth Warren
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:47 am | Permalink

      I agree with Mr Redwood desire to be concerned by such issues asw the Thomas Cook collapse and its effects.

      All too often the press calls the right wing uncaring and then praises the left wing for caring because they want the government to take control. This misses the entire point of being right wing, the best way to improve health services etc is to make people more prosperous and private ownership is the best way to achieve this.

      Regarding Thomas Cook, the worst part of the story is how senior management took millions out of the business before it went bust. Here we should be able to hold them accountable for all earnings above the average wage for the previous 7 years, I believe this will certainly focus minds.

    • James Bertram
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      I, for one, enjoy the wide range of material – it gives an opportunity to learn something new.

      That aside, the Day of Judgement is fast approaching for you, when you will be asked to vote on Boris’s rehashed version of May’s appalling Surrender Treaty, and whether you are prepared to subjugate the British nation to a foreign power so as to keep your once formidable Tory Party united.

      I hope, and don’t think, you will let us, the Nation, down.
      The Brexit Party will, I’m sure, welcome you – and any other ‘true Leaver’.
      Good luck.

      • James Bertram
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        ‘I hope, and don’t think, you will let us, the Nation, down.’

        Should be: ‘I hope you will not, and don’t think you will, let us down.’
        Back to school for me.

    • Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      Well said John.

      There are quite a few contributors to this site that should be shown the door – not for what they say but how they say it.

      There’s a bitterness in their submissions that they seem to be quite unaware of.

      They would be better off seeing a therapist.

    • Posted September 24, 2019 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      Sir John – your reply was absolutely correct. People who comment here simply wishing to criticise you personally are beneath contempt (not to say tiresome). Most wish to discuss the subject you introduce, even if they squabble amongst themselves!
      Perhaps the others (a minority) should sling their hooks and get back to their preferred newspaper comments section where they can abuse to their hearts’ content.

    • margaret howard
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply

      Hear, hear, well said.

    • forthurst
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      In the first place, Thomas Cook Group has only been in existence since 2007 and in the second, there already is a website for those who wish to read anti-Labour rantings.

  5. Roy Grainger
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    Thomas Cook used to be state-owned didn’t it – I remember it being privatised in 1972 – Corbyn looking back wistfully to those days.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      Roy

      Yes nationalised in 1948 as part of British Rail bizarrely

  6. GilesB
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    Another example of box ticking failing.

    It was much better when auditors gave their professional opinion of whether accounts are ‘true and fair’. And partners had unlimited personal liability, beyond the last tranche of professional indemnity insurance.

    Today the auditors hide behind a defence of ‘all the boxes were ticked’ and limited liability companies.

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Indeed another of many companies that have been driven into liquidation, administration or other difficulties by directors and managers who are hugely overpaid for doing this. The incentives and accounting rules are surely unfit for purpose. The list is rather long Equitable life, RBS, Carillion ….

    • Alan Jutson
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      Lifelogic

      Agree entirely.

  8. Ian!
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    Thomas Cook, since its merger/takeover has never been the Thomas Cook of our memories

    As with most acquisitions it just lazy management – they lack the ability to innovate and serve their customers in their own right, so ride on the back of the achievement of others. They reap the rewards then bail out when good management is the requirement for a future

    Very few takeovers have the management required in a changing market, they tend to be just lazy grifters a personal quick buck and the gone

  9. Lifelogic
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    The noise is that the Supreme Court will find against Boris this morning. It would not surprise me. Judges are a subset of lawyers who in my experience are hugely pro remain. While there is a criminal offence of being in Contempt of Court is there an offence of bringing the court into contempt by making very bad judgements ? Judges so often decided what outcome they want to see and then find some legal arguments or justifications (however tenuous) to rule the way they want to.

    I listened to John McDonnall yesterday, let us hope this dire man never gets anywhere near to power at any cost. Needless to say BBC Newsnight found Miatta Fahnbulleh (CEO of New Economics Foundation PPE yet again) to say it was just sensible, mainstream, common sense economics.

    Sure, very mainstream if you want to become a basket case economy like Venezuela in very short shrift.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      Just as I expected the Supreme Court Judges have decided to go to war with the government, the people, the constitution and indeed with the Queen. All eleven of these judges too. So we no longer have any real democracy just the rule of lawyers. Lawyers, whom as a class, are massively pro remain and totally out of touch with the voters.

      It was the decision of the Queen and her advisors to prorogue. We now have to listen to the even more appalling lies and drivel from the enemies of the people like Soubry, Grieve, Hammond, Gauke, Blackford, Rudd and C Lucas. How depressing this all is.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:45 am | Permalink

        Nearly everyone (on the BBC) is now calling for Boris to resign. Will they also be calling for the three senior high court judges (England and Wales) who (rightly in my opinion) decided that the prime minister acted entirely lawfully in giving this advice to the Queen to suspend should resign too? If they misunderstood the law so badly one can hardly blame Boris.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

          You clearly haven’t a clue as to how the law is administered by the Courts in the UK.

          Judges are appointed by politicians. So those lower down the tree, that is, in the High Court rather than in the Supreme Court, are far more cautious and wary of government, and unlikely to make any stand against it. They are relatively new in their careers. Hence they let Johnson off for his misleading claims on the bus etc.

          If you want to take on the Government, then you have to go to the top of the tree.

          • a-tracy
            Posted September 25, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

            Perhaps Boris should take the 21 MPs working against the manifesto they were elected on to the Supreme Court to stop them switching sides.

            I’d make this decision of MPs to switch sides or become independent a compulsory by-election decision.

  10. Ian Wilson
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    Very sad after its illustrious history, including a rescue bid for General Gordon, alas just too late. Devastating for all its staff who have our sympathies.

    Reading about the extravagant bonuses to directors. a quote from the great wartime CEO of Rolls-Royce, Ernest Hives, comes to mind “work is the greatest of pleasures, as long as there is no financial grabbing.” Sadly, it’s not only in Thomas Cook where his fine example is ignored. Thanks to Hives’ superb leadership 166,000 Merlins were built.

  11. agricola
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    It would seem that their business plan had not changed with changing circumstances. Those running the company could not see that the market had changed and went ploughing on regardless with the sad result we see today. The real losers are all their employees. One can only hope that the gap they leave in the market place is taken up by more astute operators who then need to employ more people.

  12. Newmania
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    Thomas Cook a £9bn business employing 21,000 staff worldwide has been on life support for a decade. That is should collapse into outright liquidation, despite ample warning that its model was not viable raises plenty of questions and of course, has many reasons .
    Nonetheless, Brexit has hit the holiday business and Thomas Cook itself cited it has partially responsible for losses earlier. this year
    In this case Brexit is a small factor but we must not confuse small with none. Brexit has put additional pressure on many companies and the fact that it is those which are already in difficulties who cannot survive, does not excuse those who chose to risk other people`s jobs.
    The category of weak Companies that is of more concern are the new ventures in Europe facing services that simply will not happen

    • NickC
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

      Newmania, I doubt it is Brexit that has hit “the holiday business” for two reasons: 1) it is more likely to be Brexit uncertainty, rather than Brexit itself (and that is primarily Remain MPs’ fault); 2) holiday makers are free to choose other destinations than the EU.

      As for “we must not confuse …” – you confuse things all the time. You need a balanced view – Brexit has pluses and minuses. On balance, does freedom and independence outweigh subservience to a foreign empire with an inappropriate and excessively dirigiste bureaucracy? And the answer is clearly yes.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

      Newmainia

      Well ABTA dont agree, the Travel and Holiday Trends report 2019 showed an INCREASE in holidays. However it made great play of the fact that new types of packages and ways to access the market were the big trend

      Sadly for the German owned Thomas Cook they were still living in the past and had spent decades NOT adapting to the new paradigm. Its what happens to protected markets

      • libertarian
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

        ps Newmania

        London overtakes New York to become world’s No 1 city for investments in fintech firms. In the first 8 months of 2019, London attracted 114 investments with a record-breaking value of more than $2bn.

        Hmm Now remind me again about your ‘facts” that the city was going to Frankfurt lock stock and barrel

        Any comment on this ?

  13. Alan Jutson
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    If government funds are being used to bring people home, why are they chartering aircraft from elsewhere on the open market, when the Tomas Cook Planes are simply standing on the tarmac doing nothing, why not pay to fund some of the the existing staff direct, pay the fuel Bills and landing charges direct and fly the already available TC planes.

    Now there is a shortage of aircraft, surely it would be less expensive for the taxpayer and would at least keep some of the TC staff some work for a couple of weeks whilst they put together their Cv’s and prepare for the future.

  14. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    As I read this is where the trouble really started, back in February 2007:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mytravel-and-thomas-cook-merge-436112.html

    “MyTravel and Thomas Cook merge”

    “The proposed combination between Airtours owner MyTravel and German-owned Thomas Cook will create a new company called Thomas Cook Group, with its headquarters in the UK. The tie-up is planned for completion by June.

    The proposals, which have been backed by the boards of both companies, are expected to result in cost savings of £75 million a year across the businesses.”

    “MyTravel, which has a stock market value of £1.1 billion … announced a return to profitability in December, four years after nearly collapsing …”

    http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/331936/thomas-cook-group-losses-plunge-to-145bn

    “The company blamed an impairment of more than £1 billion in the UK business relating to the merger with MyTravel in 2007.”

    This is not the first company to be brought down by a merger or acquisition which may benefit the management but proves fatal for the business.

  15. Alec
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    It’s about time that large companies and their auditors were held accountable for incompetence and fraud. Then perhaps we could extend that to banks and politicians. Or, more likely, not.

  16. Prigger
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    “The Thomas Cook business has been short of cash for much of the last decade”
    I vaguely recall it was discussed by various business media for more than a decade as rather iffy. It was an “Avoid” for any but “the brave” . Didn’t it then have a potential German buyer?
    Buying shares in airlines was always said to be the best way to lose your money for the small investor. Travel and hotel accommodation companies now online bite into everything and into one another like baby sharks in their mothers wombs. No fellow feeling, merciless.
    It does not surprise that Cooperative Groups bought into it, I’ll not say why, why it doesn’t surprise me.Good the government has not put tax payers money to waste. Though Mr McDonnell ( Labour) has suggested 200 million should now be given, ‘to give it a breathing space.’ We can expect more little breathers from him until the Treasury is emptied.

  17. BJC
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    Many years ago I heard some wise words. Success or failure can always be tracked back to the quality of the management and power is always given, never taken. It applies across business and personal lives and I’ve never been able to disprove the philosophy.

    If the EU has taken over sovereignty of our country, it’s because successive Parliaments have given it the powers to do so. If children are out of control, it’s because parents don’t set boundaries or abide by their own rules. If corporates don’t pay adequate taxes, it’s because the rules are not fit for purpose and permit them to do it. If senior management annoint themselves with extortionate salaries, award bonuses unrelated to performance, misappropriate funds, or have policies destined to lead to collapse, it’s because directors/auditors/shareholders have all failed in their duty…….again.

    • NickC
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

      BJC, Hear, hear!

  18. Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    I am a cradle Conservative and I am, frankly, terrified of Labour winning the next election through postal voting. So I understand that businessmen and women are not in it for their health.
    The left accuses all businesspeople of being greedy, oppressing the workers (poor loves) and ripping off everyone for their own personal gain.

    I am therefore asking why the CEO of Thomas Cook was reported to have paid himself £8 million quid over the last few years? (This was on the news last night, by the way.)

  19. Dan R
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    A discussion on business by a conservative MP, yes, absolutely. As previously mentioned, the whole top level management failed to adjust the business model early enough. They obviously ran the business in the same manner as they did a hundred years ago. Yesterday’s topic highlighted the need of business to have flexibility and agility to keep up with our rapidly changing society.

  20. Iain Gill
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    who were the auditors?

    the usual revolving doors of auditors swanning from one meaningless assignment to another are a joke, about time their joint incompetence was highlighted more

    in one big company I was in recently the young auditors openly said they mainly came into that clients office to take advantage of the heavily subsidised canteen…

  21. Cliff. Wokingham
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    It is sad to see another high street major brand fail.
    The world has changed and many formally solvent, major players have failed to do so too.
    Everything seems to be moving online from retail to interactions with the state.
    T C needed to shift more of their business online and reduce their expensive high street presence.
    Perhaps the answer would have been to follow Royal Mail’s lead and rent space from another business. I suspect a supermarket or bank may well have been an ideal outlet.
    I feel sorry for the staff especially given that the rescue package was pretty much agreed but at the last minute, the banks moved the goal posts.
    I do wonder whether, given the costs of repatriation, redundancy payments and welfare costs, it may have been more sensible for the state to have stood as guarantor. It’s a difficult one.

  22. Everhopeful
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Is corporatocracy actually a word? A bit clumsy but that is what we live under I reckon…thanks again to the EU.
    Laws and regs crafted for strong lobbyists with not one thought for the consumer.
    Lots of people doing things on borrowed money that only the rich used to do.
    Trouble is these companies do not see the need to provide quality.
    And because of the strength of corporations they do not need to provide it and the consumer has no rights.
    Those in charge should be made to recompense out of their own greedily bulging pockets.

    • Everhopeful
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      Fosnum takeover might have rescued Thos Cook but EU rules would not allow sale of both company and airline…if I understand correctly.

      • Narrow Shoulders
        Posted September 25, 2019 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

        Appears that the airline had to be 51% EU owned. Lufthansa pulled out but now German government has bailed Condor (the airline) out

  23. Ian!
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    The Supreme Court has sort to interfere in Government, it can no longer carry on being unaccountable. Meaning all members of the Supreme Court should from now on be voted into office for a limited time.

    They seemed to have made a judgement not about a Law but Parliamentary Process

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted September 25, 2019 at 5:52 am | Permalink

      I preferred the old system. The Smugnesses seem to enjoy playing to the cameras too much.

  24. Sea Warrior
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    There are two things I would like to see Parliament take an interest in when it gets back to work after its bucket & spade time. First, why is a travel company able to take money from customers when the CAA is actively planning a rescue operation? I received a marketing email from Thomas Cook at the beginning of last week; others received similar emails just a day or two before the collapse. Second, the money-circulation model of the travel industry needs looking at. The companies take money up-front – in whole or in part – yet we are seeing examples where hotels were being paid six weeks in arrears, at best; some hadn’t received payments since March. The operator should, I think, be made to pay the hotelier the day the holidaymaker arrives. There are working capital implications, of course, but the tour operators’ loss in that regard will be the hoteliers’ gain. Arguably, Thomas Cook should have been put out of its misery sooner. But to close on a positive note, the CAA’s Operation MATTERHORN seems to be going well.

  25. William1995
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    I must admit the Supreme Court ruling has taken me by surprise. I knew the establishment was anti Brexit, but I never thought the Courts would go this far. A court ruling that has momentum activists cheering fanatically as corbyn announces it to his comrades is clearly not impartial. We are in for either an absolute rollercoaster of reform in this country, or the cancellation of Brexit and the acceptance that there is no way of leaving the EU empire.

    It’s exciting, depressing, fascinating and shocking all at the same time.

    • Oggy
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:55 am | Permalink

      The result did not surprise me given that the establishment is anti Brexit and the Supreme Court judges day job is in the House of Lords.

      It is perfectly simple to leave the EU and that is to just walk away, but our establishment and Parliament as we have seen will not allow us to leave.

      But hey ho we will still be here when the GE comes and we will give all those democracy deniers a long overdue kick up the backside.

    • Ed
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      The Spectator yesterday said the problems of Brexit were down ultimately to Original Sin!

      The Monarchy, Parliament and The Judiciary were founded on the values of traditional Christianity. Sovereignty is also defended as a Christian value.

      But sovereignty can only be successfully won and guaranteed in the long run in the spirit by which we revere sovereignty (and the Mon, Parl and The Judiciary) in the first place – by starting off with a coherent and viable plan (above all first building up wealth of the country), through honourable means (no journalistic spin), and by having a strong leader in place.

      Our great country deserves nothing less.

    • Ed
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      Above all, pray (and even more if the country does not have a strong leader and above all does not have a strong enough economy to make Brexit a breeze), certainly not try and win and defend Brexit through journalistic spin as the Brexit media have done to a degree (and regarding remain media, two wrongs don’t make a right – nor honour the goal of sovereignty).

      Again, Sovereignty is definitely the honourable outcome but it can be only won and guaranteed in the long-run by honourable means (not forgetting how if we do leave without a deal Brexit could still be reversed in a 2nd Referendum if enough people feel badly hit economically in the first few years, and to compound things, we could get Jeremy Corbyn in with his heretical form of hard left-wing politics).

      Pray – like Joan of Arc, and look how she (an 18 year-old, uneducated peasant girl) won sovereignty for her country but through honourable means (and self-sacrifice).

      • Ed
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

        Lastly, the victory for Joan was much greater as she was fighting for sovereignty that was 100% lost (we’ve lost some sovereignty but more like 10% than 100%).

        And our country has many, many other great problems we have to address and got on with NOW – not just with the issue of loss of some sovereignty to the EU (important as that is of course).

        • Ed
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

          ‘100% lost’ – Not all of France was lost to the French back then but all the north and parts of the west of it were – these parts were 100% lost, I meant.

    • James Matthews
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      More shocking than anything else. This is clearly an epic piece of judicial activism. The lower court judge reached the conclusion that the issue was political and therefore not a matter for the courts. This was no real surprise to anyone. The supreme court reached the opposite conclusion. Not by itself too much of a surprise, but the fact that it did so unanimously is. Not one of them prepared to say “hang on a minute, this is an extension of judicial powers unprecedented in modern times – we are overruling a decision of a constitutional monarch.” It is perhaps worth remembering that the supreme court in its current form owes its existence, indirectly, to our membership of the EU. If we are going to continue to have such a court then it must be time to follow the American system and have an executive input into the appointment of its members. It is no longer possible to pretend that it is apolitical.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      Yes, the judges are one hundred per cent biased.

      They are in favour of the LAW.

      • Oggy
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

        What law is that then ?

    • NickC
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

      William, If Brexit is cancelled (which seems somewhat likely now) and we Remain a province of the EU empire, there is absolutely no point in having a UK government. Or in voting. If we Remain then the HoC and the HoL should be shut down.

  26. bill brown
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Sir JR,

    On a complete other note.

    We now know that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful, set out by a minority government, with no elected majority behind it,

    • Pud
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:46 am | Permalink

      Perhaps we ought to have the general election that Corbyn has been continually demanding, right up to the point when he was offered it?

    • 'None of the above'.
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      And yet nobody seems to be concerned that this minority Government has been created by undemocratic Parliamentarians (not by the Electorate) and has refused the Electorate a say by denying them a General Election.
      This Parliament is also satisfied for HM opposition to create Law but NOT be accountable to the Courts or the Electorate, unlike Ministers of State.

      It is now a matter of personal regret that the ‘Benn Bill’ received Royal Assent.

      What next for the Supreme Court? Perhaps they may be asked to rule on the legality of denying the Electorate a GE? Perhaps they might be asked to rule on the legality of Mr Speaker’s interpretation of Standing Order 24?

      Who knows where it might end?

    • libertarian
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

      Bill brown

      Yet it didn’t break any known law, they had to make one up . A political one. I dont care what side you voted , I dont care about Brexit. This has ended democracy in the UK and has set the people against the establishment. Its no going to end well.

      And Hans its pointless dribbling about no elected majority when the rest of them won’t even hold an election but are trying to seize power in a banana republic way.

      No taxation without representation

      • Newmania
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

        I share your outrage brother Libertarian. These traitor courts must must be swept away and replaced by a court of the people ..the ” Volksgerichtshof ” as we might call it.
        ( I also share your suspicions that some dark plot, funded secretly by “money” is behind all this.)

        • NickC
          Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

          Newmania, It has been accepted in this country, as part of our constitution, that courts do not make new law.

          I defended the result of the Miller case to require a vote in Parliament to invoke A50, because it was based on sound existing law. In contrast, the current Supreme Court ruling on prorogation is nothing but a political decision. It is the establishment against the people.

          • Newmania
            Posted September 25, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink

            So you know better than the Supreme court on the law …no probs
            You already know more about business than business , more about the economy than economists and more about just about anything you care to mention than those people who we have previously called”experts” due to some incidental qualification experience or whatever .
            You know Nick I was trying to remember if one of my nieces was 19 or 20 years old this year. I was going to ask my sister but as I have to call on perhaps you could tell me ?

          • Martin in Cardiff
            Posted September 25, 2019 at 10:59 am | Permalink

            No, it is based upon the Bill Of Rights.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 25, 2019 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

            That is a very silly analogy Martin.
            Resorting to abuse and sarcasm isn’t a proper reply.
            You seem to feel experts are like high priests who have views no one should dare challenge.
            But there are loads of experts and they have many different views and opinions.
            They mainly try to predict the future and many do not get it right.
            I remember these experts telling us what would happen immediately after the referendum result and none of their doom laden Project Fear predictions came true.
            Yet you still follow them as if it were a faith.

  27. Earley Riser
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    The CAA repatriation does seem very thoroughly planned – it will be a pleasant change to see a well executed plan from a Government arm if all continues to go well.
    I guess they did get a successful practice run with Monarch.

    As others have said Thomas Cook has been dying under the burden of the debt they took on to buy other businesses.
    If the government wants better capitalised and more resilient businesses then they should remove the tax advantages of debt financing. But then I guess that might upset some of your private equity and hedge fund paymasters who make their fortunes by sucking all the money out of the businesses that fall into their vampire grasp?

  28. Leaver
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Just heard the court decision.

    Probably correct, though the thought of another month of parliamentary squabbling is near unbearable.

    • Posted September 24, 2019 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

      ”.. probably correct..” you say. And no doubt you are one of those remains who would rather see our country ruled by the unelected, just as your EU is. Your name doesn’t fool anyone! See what Edwardm (post 12) says. He’s spot on.

  29. John Probert
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    The three CEO’s over the past 15 years have failed to take the hard decisions reqiured
    I joined Air 2000/First Choice in 1996 as a co-pilot on the Boeing fleet we could not
    of worked harder days off, many nights. The company was on the brink
    Its a long storey but when the senior management changed under Peter Long everything
    changed. He regulated capacity and only did work with reasonable margins
    After 911 we lost 10 aircraft over night and 100 pilots a man that could make ruthless
    decisions quickly to save the company
    Long understood that he was in a volatile business that was effected by just about
    everything and grew the company into one of the largest travel companies we know
    today as Tui
    I am sorry for Thomas Cook but the senior management just did not have it
    I have observed for 25 years companies failing to react to the market
    Many of them are not around today
    Aviation/Travel does not take prisoners and does not survive on Love

  30. Edwardm
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Off Topic.
    The Supreme court have decided Boris Johnson acted unlawfully though he broke no law. This is a first.
    The Supreme Court is making up the rules as it goes along.
    The Supreme Court Judges are guilty of acting improperly and they must go.

    Separately there may need to be limits to the use of prorogation, but they need to be decided by parliament outside of the periods of its application, and not selectively – e.g. why was it Ok for Major in 1997 ?

    • Caterpillar
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:48 am | Permalink

      Edwardm,

      All agreed. I hope the Govt brings forth either another vote for a GE or a Bill. If the opposition parties want the PM to resign then they should agree to a GE. The 25 day timetable would now unfortunately not be before the European Council, this is a huge democratic failure. It would be before 31st October.

      (I think the ruling is simply confirmation that the establishment elite are above the people).

      I guess what will happen will be a vote of no confidence backed by the ex-conservatives followed by a cobbled together Remain Govt.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      I’ve already said that Boris Johnson should resign, not over this issue about the prorogation of Parliament but over his expressed determination to ignore the law of the land. Originally on September 6:

      http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/09/06/who-wants-an-election/#comment-1052499

      “Once the opposition’s Bill has become the law the Prime Minister will be required to do what Boris Johnson has promised he will never do, ask for a further extension to our EU membership, and it follows that Boris Johnson must cease to be Prime Minister.

      He could break his word, or he could break the law, or he could escape from that dilemma by resigning from the public office to which the law applies.”

      • NickC
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

        Denis Cooper, But Boris has not broken the law you refer to. And the law gives the option of Parliament passing the “deal” (perhaps a revised May WA) that Boris has said he intends to secure.

      • Fred H
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

        Denis …..given the mess resulting from the next GE, Boris quitting would be a good message to the world, namely ‘The Brits, mainly the elected ones, have clearly stuck their heads up their backsides’.

    • Ian!
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      Agreed

      Making up laws without the peoples consent! whatever next.

      No accountability, no scrutiny, means no democracy.

      If it is just against convention, then so are Bercow’s ruling so are they null and void?

      The Supreme Court has just made the case for an elected judiciary.

    • Abendrot
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      An interesting side-effect of the last time the law looked favourably upon Miller is that the WA had to be voted on by Parliament and failed on 3 occasions. Given that Parliament has not been prorogued according to the latest Miller judicial/love fest, and that Bercow has stated that the WA cannot be brought forward a 4th time; could it be that exiting on WTO terms has become more likely? This is all very depressing; my vote seems worthless; why isn’t the SC interested in the legality of Parliament’s pledge to honour the referendum?

      • rose
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

        Brenda Hale devoted her last appearance as Chancellor at Bristol University to deploring the result of the referendum.

    • Mitchel
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      All part of the “Rules-Based International System.”

    • Ed
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

      Your comment both encourages anarchy (getting rid of the Judges because you disagree with them) and for people to break the rule of law (if our PM doesn’t follow the rule of law, then the rest of society will question why they should as well).

      I am no lawyer, but the Supreme Court was working within the logic of its own framework – nothing to do with politics especially as it was 11 to decision.

      The law isn’t static. But is always developing as new problems crop up and the law must address these problems as best as it can based on the law as it stands now / the spirit of.

      I wish Brexit had been planned properly (above all building up our economy first and getting a strong majority to support it). Then Brexit would be a breeze. And Parliament, The Judiciary, The Monarchy, Business, and the Country wouldn’t have had to go through what we’ve gone through the last three years (especially as we have so many other profound problems with the country that we have to try and resolve). And we’re not even out yet. And we got Communist Corbyn looming in the background. Low productivity. And more.

      • Edwardm
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

        There was and there is no law passed by parliament that states that parliament cannot be prorogued, and Boris Johnson acted within constitutional norms – re John Major’s uncontested prorogation in 1997. Boris Johnson broke no law.
        We have constitutional conventions that govern the operation of parliament. It is quite wrong that the rules should be changed at the time that they are being used – since the change is driven by one side to their current benefit and disadvantage of the other side without long term consideration. If parliament decides that there is need for a rule change, it should do so at a time when that rule is not in contention.
        The Supreme Court has made an arbitrary decision of constitutional significance and is guilty of altering the rules during play. If that follows from the logic of its framework – than the framework is defective. Instead the court should have made no ruling and instead could advise parliament in the future to consider whether there should be limits on the use of prorogation. Constitutional innovation is not in the realm of the court.
        If prorogation were for say 6 months, that would be well outside of constitutional norms and then the court would have a situation it could rule against. But the PMs prorogation was for 5 days above the recess still agreed to by the Opposition – who could have changed their mind in early by Sept or who could have supported a GE for the highest authority – the people – to decide.
        The Supreme Court has made a big mistake, especially as the effect will be to assist those who wish to undermine the higher authority of the decision made by the British people.
        ——
        I suspect by not making their case as strongly as they could have done, the government has probably enabled the Supreme Court (known to be comprised of Remainers) to list a simple set of reasons why they rule against the government, but now the government will have an easier task to comply with those conditions should it need to prorogue again in the near future, compared to a having a more difficult judgment against.

        • a-tracy
          Posted September 25, 2019 at 9:59 am | Permalink

          These MPs didn’t feel strongly enough about Brexit and sorting this out to come in over their summer recess period did they!

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

      I had to look up Supreme Court today to try to discover more about them and their role on behalf of the public.

      I was surprised it was only set up on 1st October 2009. “The Supreme Court is to have the discretion to resolve controversy arising in matters of devolution. The other main focus of the court is to construct issues which they feel have a public significance”. Lawteacher.net ” One of the main motives of the new court was the facility to allow the Law Lords to debate in legislative matters. However, this has raised queries into the “sufficient transparency of independence”.

      We bang on about the unelected EU quite rightly, but one also has to ask what do we know about our new rulers. These twelve judges who elected/selected them? Are they political appointments? I.e. do we have six left wing judges and six right wing judges??? How do they get removed? Do they hold the position for a number of years or for a lifetime once elected?

      • Fred H
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

        If the People, or more importantly the MPs, think the PM has overstepped the mark by exceeding time of previous prorogations, then a Vote of No Confidence should be taken, and possibly a GE. Standard rules——follow them!

      • Fred H
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

        Comment above gone to wrong area – ooops.

        On the Judges. Salaries? Benefits? Pensions? Term of Office?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      So the Supreme Court says the government’s advice to the Queen was unlawful. Which clearly implies that the Queen (and her advisors), the Attorney General were also negligent (in being fooled by this unlawful advice). Also it seems that three high court judges were also totally deluded in finding in the government’s favour. Yet all 11 Justices now find the other way.

      These eleven Justices seem to claim this judgement has nothing to do with Brexit. What sensible person would believe that claim for one moment? They clearly are trying to take us for complete fools.

      The vast majority will see this as an overtly political attempt to defeat the clearly expressed will of the people to leave the UK. It is a very dangerous and a very foolish and far reaching judgement. It will probably do a great deal of harm.

      • Caterpillar
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        +1

    • Leonard Mills
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

      They decided he broke the law. That is what unlawful means. If you are in favour of lawbreaking, could I suggest you leave the UK and soon

      • Anonymous
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

        But WHAT law ???

      • Edwardm
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

        The fact is the PM broke no law. Therefore as used by the judges in this case, unlawful cannot mean breaking the law.
        I am not in favour of a small group of people (certain MPs and Judges) acting to undermine the democratic decision of the people.

      • NickC
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

        Leonard, Which law?

      • Dennis Zoff
        Posted September 25, 2019 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        Leonard Mills

        If Boris broke a law, he should be serving time….but he is not, he is still PM! There is your answer…clear now?

        Just because you wish it, does not make it so!

  31. BillM
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    This is one of many large concerns that have gone out of business due to mismanagement.
    Why aren’t the Director ever made accountable for losses? It seems at present they can over-pay themselves and make very bad decisions that cause losses to their shareholders and in some cases, the bankruptcy of the company they run, yet they walk away with their money intact.
    We desperately need laws to protect the shareholders and the workforce from incompetent management. Making them accountable is a step in the right direction.

  32. kzb
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    The TV news is full of the Thomas Cook episode being inevitable because people now book their own holidays on line. But then we are told there are 150,000 TC customers currently abroad and the company has millions of bookings.
    This sounds like it should be a viable business, why are they allowed to go bankrupt so easily ?

    • julie williams
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      This bankruptcy has not been easy, Thomas Cook have been (close to? ed) insolvency for a long time.
      As for asking why they are allowed to go bankrupt…what can be done to stop them?
      They owe (a large sum ed).

  33. BillM
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    Never mind the collapse of Thomas Cook, what we have heard from the Supreme Court has caused the collapse of British democracy.
    So Parliament can now over rule the people that put them there and over rule the elected Government then refuse to allow the people to declare their position via a General Election. Democracy is dead.
    These judges are unfit for purpose because they have stepped outside of their remit and insulted OUR Queen, the Head of State.
    If they want to intrude on Political decisions they MUST first be made accountable to the people OR resign. They will not be missed.

  34. DaveM
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    We have:

    A PM instructed by unaccountable judges.
    A minority government that can’t govern.
    A Parliament which is breaking its mandated but which won’t put itself up for election.
    A rogue speaker effectively acting as PM.

    This is ridiculous. What we do about it Mr R?

    • NickC
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      DaveM, Succinctly put.

  35. David J
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    Supreme Court ruling
    Another new low for the UK and how the institutions are making up the rules as they go along.
    Listening to the little man in the big chair crowing and rambling in the way that he can made it no better. Roll on the GE

  36. Mick
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    I see the bias bbc have gone into political meltdown over the Supreme Courts decision, the only person they didn’t interview was the tea lady who makes the teas for the remoaners tea parties, it’s just been wall to wall remoaner Remainers they’ve interviewed, had the decision gone the other way the bias bbc might have given it a foot note, and I also see the chicken lived Labour mps are still cowing away from a General Election but want another referendum, they really do take the voting public for idiots , the one and only reason the likes of sourbry grieve and all the other remoaners don’t want a General Election is because they and all the other Brexit deniers would lose there seats in Parliament were as a referendum or people’s vote they wouldn’t

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps that is one of the Leaver’s only choice in all this to all collectively not watch the BBC News, Sky News, C4 news, just stop giving them oxygen from tonight. Views of the majority are completely ignored anyway so lets boycott for a week.

      • NickC
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

        A-tracy, Trust me on this – stop watching the BBC completely, not just for a week. And stop paying them. You’ll feel much better for it – I do!

        • a-tracy
          Posted September 25, 2019 at 9:49 am | Permalink

          I’m actually acting on this Nick and I feel much better this morning after watching no news programs at all last night.

  37. agricola
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Well now we have it.

    Democracy 0 Turd Polishers 3

    But where are all these nay sayers going to go next. Labour are in chaos and terrified of a GE because they know their traditional vote will drift. A few to the Lib Dems who prefer their form of socialism. Many from Labour Leave constituencies to Brexit. Wisdom suggests to me that the Conservatives and Brexit party should confer so that in the event of a GE they do not queer each others pitch. Watch this space.

    • NickC
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      Agricola, I believe the Tory party is too arrogant, and too complacent, to make a pact with the Brexit party.

  38. Ian!
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    In some ways if Parliament had just been suspended for the conference season as is the norm, and then prorogue for the 4 days to prepare for the Queens speech as is conventions there would be no discussion.

    The fact the outcome would have been the same shows how despicable some people are.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 25, 2019 at 7:57 am | Permalink

      Hear hear.

  39. glen cullen
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    The gloves need to come off

    Either withdraw the current extension with immediate affect and declare that we have now left the EU
    or
    Declare a vote of ‘no confidence’ in own government

    • Mark B
      Posted September 25, 2019 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      There were two clear options the PM could have done.

      1) Filibuster the Benn Bill.

      2) Advise HM not to give the above Royal Assent.

      He did neither and now we are in a real mess.

  40. Dave Andrews
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    I find myself somewhat confused by the Supreme Court’s decision. They say the decision to prorogue was unlawful, but I can’t find any reference to which law has been breached.
    As prorogation has occurred by Royal Assent, does that not make the action of the Crown illegal according to them?
    I wasn’t in favour of prorogation, although I rather like the idea that parliament isn’t sitting making up more stupid laws. Going on from this, how can a prime minister ever again make an application to prorogue parliament without it being subject to challenge by the courts?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, but the Justices just invent the law to fit in with whatever agenda they fancy having. In this case they did not want Brexit – as demanded by the voters. Not the rule of law but the rule of lawyers.

      Had May porogued so as to bring her putrid W/A yet again to a vote (against Bercow’s rules) they would certainly never have overturned that. It was purely driven by a desire to kill Brexit. Totally contemptible they probably do not even realise how biased they have been. Rather like the BBC.

      As it happens I have an elderly aunt who also went to Girton (history) a bit older than Lady Hale. Hale reminds me of her, pleasant, academic, fun to talk to, kind but profoundly wrong headed on anything to do with business, science, logic, the dire NHS, Brexit, or similar. On the NHS she knows from personal experience how dire the service often is but supports it fully (because so many of the medical staff are indeed very caring, dedicated and good). It is the system and funding that does not work.

  41. Geoff Amer
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    If his action are deemed unlawful, What actual law did Boris break?

    • rose
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

      Brenda Hale appears to have made it up, specially for the occasion. As she made up her history.

      There is not a single example of a Prorogation being curtailed by a court. Nor is there a statute to control Prorogation. No law, no precedent. But that is what happens when a jumped up female academic is promoted to the highest legal position without serving the arduous apprenticeship required of the men. What is so shocking about this case is that there wasn’t one honourable dissenter. I had expected several.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, I too was surprised that all eleven found the wrong way. But then nearly all lawyers are very pro remain. The dire May government considered proroguing in order to bring her rancid WA back yet again, to get round the Speakers rules. Does anyone imagine the supreme court would have found that move to be unlawful? It is entirely a stop Brexit and bol**** to the people judgement.

    • Fred H
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      If the People, or more importantly the MPs, think the PM has overstepped the mark by exceeding time of previous prorogations, then a Vote of No Confidence should be taken, and possibly a GE. Standard rules——follow them!

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 25, 2019 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      Geoff I read “Boris Johnson’s prorogation did break the law, but it broke constitutional, not criminal law. By preventing Parliament’s right to hold the government to account, he broke the rules governing how the UK functions. What he did was “unlawful” – meaning it wasn’t permitted or conforming to the law. But it is not “illegal” – which would mean forbidden by law. There is currently no suggestion that Johnson broke a criminal law. This means he cannot be convicted, or, as some have suggested, go to jail.”

      So where is the British Constitution written down, which Act did he break and what does that act say. Was there precedent for this decision, Johnson said “Prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge.”
      Corbyn said the PM was “usurping power from the people”. However, it is the MPs elected on one platform and acting on their own beliefs that are usurping their power and trying to tie the hands of THEIR members’ selected Prime Minister.

  42. Margaret
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Competition

  43. MickN
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    In the words of JFK
    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”

  44. MickN
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Why doesn’t Boris appeal the decision of the supreme court to the ECJ?
    They are a higher court …..and the irony !!!
    They would probably vote against us too but it would run the clock down nicely.

    • Leonard Mills
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Because it is nothing to do with the EU. It is our law. Our sovereignty. Youre not one of these mugs who thinks we are not sovereign are you? The UK Parliament is in charge of the UK, anyone who telks you different is lying to you, or maybe just a dunce

      Reply EU law and the ECJ are supreme until we leave

      • NickC
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

        Leonard, It is you who is a dunce. Declaration 17 (in the Lisbon treaty) states unequivocally that EU law has primacy over UK law.

  45. Ed
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    The high moral nature of Sovereignty must be MATCHED by high morals in winning and guaranteeing it, long-term.

    Boris has lost the moral high ground. When he claims the moral high ground on Brexit, many Remainers, just don’t believe him, and many Brexiters don’t trust him.

    1) They believe (rightly or wrongly) that he used Brexit first and foremost for his own political career
    2) That he exaggerated the ills of the EU as a journalist to sell papers
    3) That he exaggerated over the bus
    4) That he said f**k business
    5) That he prorogued Parliament unlawfully when there was no need to anyway
    6) That prorogation has dragged Judiciary in, marring it
    7) That prorogation has dragged the Monarchy in, marring it
    8) That he is closely associated with Gove who stabbed Boris and exaggerated wildly about immigration

    And that without Boris (and Gove), Leave may never have won – a pyrrhic victory.

    • rose
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      This is just a list of black propaganda points wheeled out by Remain in place of arguments for why we should stay in the EU. Remainiacs may well believe it all now because, if black propaganda is repeated every day, people come to believe it. That is why you are doing it now.

      The fact is, the Leave vote would have been much bigger if it had not been for Remain’s Project Fear, overspending, exploitation of the national institutions and foreign leaders, and various irregularities like keeping the registration open two extra days and addressing all the remain groups together which was against electoral law. There was also the 9 million pound leaflet. Particularly distasteful was the way Remain recruited the murder to its cause.

      • Ed
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

        Hi Rose,

        I am actually a Brexiter. I strongly believe in sovereignty for practical and ethical reasons.

        I just don’t believe in Boris’ vision for Brexit as I don’t think he really cares. I think he’s hijacking Brexit for his own personal ambitions.

        And I agree. There was dishonour in BOTH camps – Remain and Leave.

        But my point is that if you want to win something honourable like Brexit then you can only do so through honourable means. Not just because the honour of sovereignty dictates it but also because honour wins people’s hearts and minds in the long-term.

        Lastly, I support Brexit, but a Brexit that is based on proper planning (in particular, building up one’s country financially), leadership, patience, and HONOUR.

        Otherwise you end up with a pyrrhic victory / unintended consequences, where we could end up leaving and then returning to the EU with Communist Corbyn at the helm.

        I still hope the current Conservative Party can pull off Brexit but it must do it in a way that matches the honour / dignity of what is trying to be achieved: sovereignty.

      • Ed
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

        @Rose,

        Also, please don’t turn the fire of turning Brexit into something crudely binary, i.e. you’re either for or against Brexit. This is illogical thinking.

        It’s possible to be for a goal but against the methods or some of the methods by which people are trying to achieve it.

        The goal of two generals on the same side in war is to defeat the enemy. But they might have very different methods of achieving that. That does NOT mean they fight on the opposite sides!

    • steve
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      Ed

      “5) That he prorogued Parliament unlawfully ….”

      Well you say he did, the supreme court (created by Blair, by the way) says he did, I’m still waiting to know what actual law Boris is supposed to have broken.

      What law is it ? What act of parliament legitimised it ?

      Oh I see……it isn’t actually a real law, because it doesn’t exist. It’s just a made up on the spot thing by the lefties and their kangaroo court.

      • Ed
        Posted September 25, 2019 at 8:27 am | Permalink

        Neither you or I have as much experience of the law as the 11 High Court Judges. They were ultimately working within the logic of their own law which is bigger than the particular crisis we face, with the law being universal in time to protect us from political leaders from the future who might try and bend the rules for their own ambition.
        We also have a duty to respect the decisions of the courts even if we disagree with their rulings so that others respect the law and for our country not to slip into anarchy.

    • Dennis Zoff
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      Ed

      That being said (laboured). To Rose’s point?

      “What are the benefits of remaining in the EU?”

      Please list them here for our edification?

      1. ….
      2. ….
      3. ….

      • Ed
        Posted September 25, 2019 at 8:18 am | Permalink

        @Dennis,
        I am a Brexiter over being a Remainer. I strongly support the goal of sovereignty over being in the EU. But I strongly oppose the methods by which Boris Johnson is trying to achieve it now and before the Referendum.

        People need to differentiate between the merit of a goal and how to achieve it. And how trying to achieve a good goal with bad methods can lead to unintended consequences.

        • Dennis Zoff
          Posted September 25, 2019 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

          Ed

          I understand your sentiments, highly commendable…but do you really believe Remainers have been playing fair and honourably (they are out to win with no holds barred) – had they been honourable, we would not be debating this issue after three years?

          Focus on the end game…whatever it takes to win. Unfortunately, as in business, being nice is usually reserved for those that come second…..

          …and nobody is remembered for coming second? The harsh reality, but true!

          • Ed
            Posted September 25, 2019 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

            @Dennis,

            The ‘harsh reality’ is that Quakers are the most successful group of people in British Business History!

            Their methods were essentially honourable. Yes, ‘humble as a lamb’ is challenging (and right) but Christianity also says, be as ‘wise as a serpent’! and as ‘brave as a lion!’ (and as persevering as a donkey, as hard-working and diligent as an ant / bee, and so on).

            ‘Wise as a serpent’ isn’t cunning but wisdom to bring about a good. Solomon was blessed with wisdom.

            And its these virtues that win in the long-term! (The Quakers are proof of this in business!).

          • Ed
            Posted September 25, 2019 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

            (Not forgetting Quakers were a small group of people with huge results!)

            Also, consider how the Brits during WW2 did not fall to the dishonourable standards that the Wehrmacht sometimes did in WW2. We won in the end and for a 1,000 years Brits will look back as those British soldiers as heroes and men of honour (and shame for some of the Germans in Wehrmacht WW2).

            (Plus there was honour in what the British army was fighting for: the defeat of Nazi Germany, as opposed to the dishonourable goal of the Wehrmacht of expanding Nazi Germany outside its borders).

            And let’s not forget how a 17 year-old uneducated, peasant girl was key to booting out France’s foes in the 15th century and through HONOURABLE means!

          • Ed
            Posted September 25, 2019 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

            Add to The Quakers in Business, WW2 British Soldiers, and Joan of Arc, here’s WINSTON CHURCHILL on HONOUR:

            ‘Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense.’

          • Dennis Zoff
            Posted September 26, 2019 at 1:08 am | Permalink

            Ed

            Not sure why you did not include the last part of your Churchill quote?

            …..convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

            Then you may likes these too:

            “History is written by the victors.” – Winston Churchill

            “Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the hard may be; for without victory there is no survival. ”- Winston Churchill

            “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill

  46. margaret howard
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    The asset strippers (hedge funds) were at work again.

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      In what way were the asset strippers at work again Margaret?

    • Fred H
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

      mh – – please explain how Hedge Funds ‘stripped’ assets?

      That – OR SHUT UP.

  47. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    What I want to know is what comeback taxpayers have on the auditors. Too often in recent years auditors have given a clean bill of health to a can of worms. It cost Arthur Anderson its very existence. Is it impossible to legislate for penalties for auditors who screw up?

    Regarding executive pay, I think that we need a framework of law which says that no employee of a limited liability company may determine his/her own remuneration. That applies to directors, who are also employees. In an old fashioned partnership, it is OK for the partners to determine their own remuneration, because partnerships do not have limited liability.

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

      Lindsay, I read in the Guardian that “The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has the authority to investigate and sanction auditors of companies and individuals who are members of the accounting profession. ”

      The FRC’s enforcement division conducts investigations and can bring prosecutions against auditors, actuaries and accountants “where there appears to be misconduct or a breach of the relevant professional standards”.

  48. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    On the substance of the matter, Thomas Cook was a dinosaur of a company that failed to adapt to modern ways of planning holidays. Did they not notice what Trivago, Trip Advisor and Expedia were doing? No one is going to resurrect the Thomas Cook type of company. They even had their own aeroplanes.

  49. libertarian
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    I think we should ring Donald and see if he wants to buy UK . As we seem now to be in the realm of who ever has deep pockets rules the roost using the courts

    The day parliamentary democracy finally died in UK

    Imagine the carnage if we were French

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

      The Court was defending Parliamentary democracy. Johnson tried to render it a trifle.

      Please try to explain.

      • steve
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

        MiC

        “Please try to explain.”

        ….and I dare you to explain what actual law is it that Boris is supposed to have broken. What act of Parliament is it ? is it on the books ? did it get past the Queen and the Lords ? was it debated ?

        Tip; there isn’t one, it doesn’t exist.

        Oh and let us not forget….it was a Labour PM who gave unlawful advice to the entire nation, parliament, and Monarch to get this country into an illegal war.

      • NickC
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

        Martin, Parliament gave the people the right to decide. Fat lot of good that has done us – Parliament has reneged on its promise to ensure they can continue politically asset stripping the UK for the benefit of the EU. The Supreme Court is in on it. Boris was, however feebly, attempting to obey democracy.

        • a-tracy
          Posted September 25, 2019 at 9:09 am | Permalink

          I wonder how the people could hold the 21 Tory MPs elected on No deal is better than a bad deal manifesto can be prosecuted for not upholding the manifesto they stood on, especially those turning tale and joining the remain Lib Dems when they specifically said they would represent the sovereign people’s decision. If the Brexit party were any use they would do this but they are ineffective, marginalised and frankly useless.

      • a-tracy
        Posted September 25, 2019 at 9:11 am | Permalink

        Parliamentary democracy is dead Martin, it died with 21 Tory MPs overturning the platform they stood on at the 2017 election.

        It died when all those MPs in leave constituencies said they would honour the decision then they didn’t, they rejected the WA as a bad deal, the EU said there was no other deal so….

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      Indeed all thanks to Bercow, Blair’s Supreme Court and the dire quality of all but about 80 or so of the current crop of MPs.

      • Caterpillar
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        and fixed term parliament act.

    • sm
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

      It now appears that Mrs G Miller is our sovereign and The Speaker is the Government.

      I never thought I would see British democracy brought to its knees, and by so-called Conservative politicians – this is a dire judgement.

      • steve
        Posted September 24, 2019 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

        sm

        “It now appears that Mrs G Miller is our sovereign and The Speaker is the Government.”

        Yep, and the true Monarch just sits there and lets ’em get away with it.

  50. a-tracy
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    You’ve got to laugh about the Labour Party, the party for the public sector workers and their unions, the party of we want more rules and regulations of employment, then you get Corbyn asking for Boris’ resignation. NO. Go through due process, if you want to put him out of office call for a vote of confidence in him, or give us the vote and call a general election vote tomorrow.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      Indeed. Not only do they want more endless and costly red tape and rules on employment (and yet more half baked environmental rules) but they want the EU to set these for us (as the UK is apparently incapable (without being under the EU/ECJ thumb.

      They are scared to death of an election.

  51. Prigger
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    It was the mention by the Supreme Court summing up today on what Parliament said at the start of the 1600s and then the later law made in about the 1690s which swung me about the decision on Boris. It shows how far we have come since then. Boris is a man yet can still fall foul on witchcraft.

  52. Brexiteer wiv Musket
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Of course our Country has now ascended Ridicule Lawful.
    If and when we get out of the EU we must completely flush through the legal system. It is highly likely everyone now in prison did not receive justice, a fair trial, logical reasoning and evidence provided. It cannot be assumed they did. Not now.

  53. Andy
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Brexiteers: A guide to ‘What do we want?’

    2016: Parliamentary sovereignty and British laws interpreted in British courts by British judges to rid us of the unelected EU dictatorship.

    2019: To mindlessly support an unelected PM when he illegally shuts down Parliament because he doesn’t actually like Parliamentary sovereignty – and scrap all judges.

    Your philosophical journey has been staggering.

    • Ed
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

      @Andy,

      I challenge you to respond to R. Stephens’s strong arguments below about The Lisbon Treaty.

    • NickC
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

      Andy, Parliament is only sovereign in a democracy because the ultimate arbiters, the people, are sovereign. You mindlessly support the Remain asset strippers. At least Boris was trying to obey the will of the sovereign people. Your philosophical journey hasn’t even begun.

  54. Andy
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps unelected El Presidente Boris and Herr Cummings could appeal to the European
    Court of Justice?

    Wouldn’t it be funny beyond belief if the ECJ found in the Brexiteers favour? Mark Francois would probably explode.

    • NickC
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

      Andy, Boris has been elected just the way every PM is elected – by his constituents.

  55. David Maples
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Thomas Cook RIP

    Tim Cook 🍏 arise !!

    Surely the A-G’s advice to the government that prorogation from Sep 9 was legal, is game, set and match to Boris?

  56. BR
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Since the directors said this in their last report:

    “… the Directors have a reasonable expectation that the Group will be able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities as they fall due over the three year period of the assessment”

    The question is: were the circumstances that caused the company to fail such that they could / should have been “reasonably” foreseen? Subjective though that term is, if the were not a bolt from the blue then what recourse do the shareholders have?

    Or the employees? Or the customers?

    Is there provision in law for these directors’ bonuses and remuneration, which were presumably based om the report, to be repaid? And if not, why not?

  57. rose
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    If there is a silver lining in the disgraceful misjudgement today, it is this: it was so extreme, so philistine, so vindictive, that Boris will now be able to hold his head higher in standing up to it than if it had been more equivocal.

    What must Her Majesty be thinking? A new session of Parliament and a new Queen’s Speech is a big affair, with lots of advance planning and security involved, and now these supposed judges on the Supreme Court have trashed it all, including her Prorogation itself. Do they even know what they have done? She must know the Constitution better than anyone and it doesn’t look as if they know it at all.

    • steve
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

      rose

      “What must Her Majesty be thinking?”

      To be honest, Rose, pains me to say it but I don’t think she’s even bothered.

      If she was, as Monarch and head of state she’d have prevented Blair’s court from hearing the case.

      There have been so many treasons and so many breaches of the law by the left in the House of Commons, courtesy Mr unbiased Bercow, that if she was bothered we wouldn’t be in this mess now and she’d have stepped in ages ago.

  58. RichardM
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    Government (and our host..) until today
    “Prorogation is nothing to do with Brexit!”

    Government today :
    “Stopping prorogation is an attempt to stop Brexit!”

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

      Apples and oranges @Richard

      Government suspends Parliament slightly longer than conference season to prepare for Queen’s speech.

      Establishment MPs and the opposition determined to either stay in the EU or make political capital from not leaving want Parliamenr open so they can make mischief or prevent us from leaving.

      Two different inputs.

  59. R. Stephens
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020,
    ITS WORSE THAN THE SO-CALLED DEAL, IF 99% OF THE BRITISH THINK TERESA MAYS DEAL IS BAD, JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAIN ..
    “What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all. Check it out if you wish
    1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.
    2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.
    3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
    4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled – but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.)
    5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
    6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.
    7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.
    8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.
    9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.
    10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights
    11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights
    12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 – as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty
    13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation
    14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent
    15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy
    16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them
    17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealths
    18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc
    19: The UK loses control of its judicial system
    20: The UK loses control of its international policy
    21: The UK loses full control of its national policy
    22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.
    23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program
    24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction
    25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty
    26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020
    This is the future that the youths of today think we stole from them? They should be on their knees thanking us for saving them from being turned into Orwellian automatons!
    Forget Deals no deals it’s time for Remainers and Brexiteers to unite and see what’s coming before it’s too late.
    This is the whole reason they are dragging Brexit out. So, we can get to 2020 then we have no choices anymore.
    WAKE UP PEOPLE …Before its too late

    • steve
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      R Stevens

      A very informative post, thank you.

      Though I do now wonder if we might as well pack up, let the mouthy goons in this country have it their own way, and when the penny drops just tell them tough, hard luck, you knew best, not our problem, go whistle.

      ‘Unite’ with remain ? I don’t think so. What I truly think of them cannot be posted on this site. But suffice to say remain traitors wanted it sectarian…….so sectarian it is then.

    • Ed
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

      This is a really strong argument.

      It’s cool, logical arguments like this that wins minds over to Brexit. I’m more of a Brexiter than a Remainer but I get accused of ‘black propaganda’ because I don’t like the strategy and tactics being used by Boris Johnson who was at the helm of Brexit before the Referendum and again now.

      In fact, a minority of people are either strongly Brexit or Remain. Most people are lukewarm / agnostic / confused / don’t care / want Brexit but done in the right way. If Brexit is to be a long-term success, then hearts and minds need to be won over by LOGICAL arguments and WARM discourse.

    • Edwardm
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

      This is most alarming.
      So, extending our EU membership into 2020 is a clever and deceitful ruse by Remainers.
      It is most appalling our parliament agreed to it in 2010, but now needs wide publicity.

    • Helena
      Posted September 25, 2019 at 7:49 am | Permalink

      The text of the Treaty of Lisbon is below. Use the search function. Search for 2020 and for 2022. you will get no hits, not one. And you will see that every word of “R Stephens” post is untrue.

      https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12007L%2FTXT

  60. mancunius
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    typo: ‘that enfolds’ not ‘enfold’.

  61. tim
    Posted September 24, 2019 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Glow of hope, our friend Donald Trump is showing his support. I saw it on youtube sun. No chance in MSM. God bless Donald Trump!

    • margaret howard
      Posted September 24, 2019 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

      tim

      With friends like these……………….

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page