Brexit Referendum Superthread

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

The costs were outlined clearly in the referendum campaign. They were also exaggerated, but if one could fault the remain campaign it wouldn't be for not highlighting the potential risks.

Yup, clearly the fault of the remain campaign that the Brexiters lied outright about the costs.

Your take on the immigration side is too simplistic. People aren't opposed to immigration. The Leave side even acknowledged the benefits of immigration. The issue was about immigration without controls.

Except the 41% raise in reported hate crimes after Brexit that is.

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

The costs were outlined clearly in the referendum campaign. They were also exaggerated, but if one could fault the remain campaign it wouldn't be for not highlighting the potential risks.

You take revisionism to new heights

Lemming

Nody wrote: »

Yup, clearly the fault of the remain campaign that the Brexiters lied outright about the costs.

On that particular little gem; the Leave campaign were instructed to stop using that figure by the ONS because it was absolute steaming excrement and was misleading the public. And what did they do? They kept using it. Which should tell you something about the cynicism & "honesty" of the Leave campaigners.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

..... in reality most were only concerned about Johnny Foreigner moving in next door?

I think they were more concerned with Mohamed Foreigner rather than Johnny Foreigner, or for that matter Jacques, or Fritz, or even Seamus Foreigner.

And the point being that the big problem was not EU immigration but immigration from the rest of the world which was under total control of the UK Government.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they were more concerned with Mohamed Foreigner rather than Johnny Foreigner, or for that matter Jacques, or Fritz, or even Seamus Foreigner.

And the point being that the big problem was not EU immigration but immigration from the rest of the world which was under total control of the UK Government.

Not really; any immigration was to much as seen by the lovely notes dropped in mail boxes such as this:


Or noted on walls:


Or from a Spanish school:

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

I think we all know that these are a racist minority, and I agree that the Leave result may have emboldened an already racist minority.

However, this has nothing to do with the fact that most British people support immigration with the right controls.

It also has nothing to do with where Britain goes from here because overturning the result isn't a democratic option. Re-running the referendum shows a lack of respect for the result that was delivered in June. If you wouldn't do it if Remain won by the same margin, it's not out of a genuine concern for democracy.

So the logical option is how does Britain leave the European Union with the mandate from the referendum in the best way possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Enzokk wrote:

I am sorry, why should we be concerned about getting the UK the most long term benefit? I would understand if you are in the UK, but in Ireland we should only be concerned about getting the most benefit for Ireland.

Most benefit for Ireland for sure but we should (and will) also look for what most benefits the wider EU, in which our status will be enhanced.

Most of the economic consequences of Brexit will be commercially driven and I think we are well positioned to take advantage of the UK's self-inflicted wound.

The main headache is the border and we need the EU's help with that. We have many friends in Europe; the UK has very few. Once the technical and legal stuff is sorted, the UK can go fish.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I think we all know that these are a racist minority, and I agree that the Leave result may have emboldened an already racist minority.

However, this has nothing to do with the fact that most British people support immigration with the right controls.

It also has nothing to do with where Britain goes from here because overturning the result isn't a democratic option. Re-running the referendum shows a lack of respect for the result that was delivered in June. If you wouldn't do it if Remain won by the same margin, it's not out of a genuine concern for democracy.

So the logical option is how does Britain leave the European Union with the mandate from the referendum in the best way possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're asking the impossible.

First of all, the mandate of the referendum can be easily overturned by a different result in in a subsequent referendum. I see that pro-Brexit supporters of all varieties are terrified at the thought of a second referendum - I think they are not that dissimilar to a lot of the prolife lobby here who have what they want and are afraid it would be taken from them.

Leaving the EU in the best way possible depends on your definition of best. Least economically damaging would imply continued membership of the customs union and single market; however this would guarantee freedom of movement and remove the called for freedom to sign their own trade deals. Least amount of immigration would be highly desirable for some people but this would be very economically damaging and would have knock on negative impacts on a) NHS staffing levels b) teaching staffing levels and c) the UK's key invisible exports in third level education.

The fascinating thing for me is that broadly speaking, people who argue in favour of Brexit, or are now campaigning to move on with (ie, who are saying they voted remain but now we need to move on) are ot very good at recognising that even now, a lot of the demands within the Brexit side are broadly mutually incompatible. YOu cannot have your cake and eat it.

The current response on the part of some UK residents is to suggest that the EU should move to meet the UK. The problem is that the EU does not have to. The UK people who buy BMWs will still be buying BMWs either which way. The German auto industry is not going to save Britain from itself because it doesn't target a price sensitive market segment. So if you want to cut immigration, you are out of the single market and it's patently not worth demanding accommodation because the UK is not owed accommodation. This mess is a UK made mess.

I'd have more respect for the argument of moving on if the BRexit side demonstrated the ability to do so. However they still focus on the idea that everyone should be meeting their demands and the EU should be bending over backwards to accommodate them.

Ireland's dependence on the UK for trade has diminished greatly over the last 40 years. It still has a long way to go because the country is massively vulnerable to sterling issues and now, potential tarif issues. A lot of our retail is UK based. This is before you get to the intricacies of the Good Friday Agreement and its assumptions relating to EU membership.

The result does nothing to demonstrate that the UK is anywhere near being united. What it does suggest. however, is that there are people who are monumentally selfish, the kind of kids who break toys to ensure no one gets any enjoyment out of them. That is the impression I have of Brexit voters. They don't care what happens to their compatriots in Europe, in Gibralter, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland. They want to sock it to Germany and France while convincing themselves that Germany and France need them.

This is utterly delusional.

We aren't in the business of finding out how best to move on with the UK. We're in the business of finding out how best to move on without them. The world does not revolve around England and maybe, England needs to learn that. The Brexit vote was an English result, not a UK result, with Wales hanging on the coat tails.

topmanamillion

First Up wrote: »

Most benefit for Ireland for sure but we should (and will) also look for what most benefits the wider EU, in which our status will be enhanced.

Most of the economic consequences of Brexit will be commercially driven and I think we are well positioned to take advantage of the UK's self-inflicted wound.

The main headache is the border and we need the EU's help with that. We have many friends in Europe; the UK has very few. Once the technical and legal stuff is sorted, the UK can go fish.

Who exactly are these friends? Not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it but we have very little ties with similar sized EU countries (most of whom are in eastern Europe), larger countries such as Germany and France have consistently attacked our low corporation tax.

"We have many friends in Europe" is a huge myth. We`ve an international image of being good craic alright and a few of the lads sang to nuns and babies at the Euros but I cant see that being of any use when it comes to the EU negotiating Brexit. We will have a peripheral say in Brexit as we do in most other EU matters.

There is no doubt we`ve lost a massive ally at the EU table in the UK. A fellow English speaking country who supported us on many issues such as tax and agricultural policies.

Calina

topmanamillion wrote: »

Who exactly are these friends? Not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it but we have very little ties with similar sized EU countries (most of whom are in eastern Europe), larger countries such as Germany and France have consistently attacked our low corporation tax.
"We have many friends in Europe" is a huge myth. We`ve an international image of being good craic alright and a few of the lads sang to nuns and babies at the Euros but I cant see that of being any use when it comes to the EU negotiating Brexit. We will have a peripheral say in Brexit as we do in most other EU matters.
There is no doubt we`ve lost a massive ally at the EU table in the UK. A fellow English speaking country who supported us on many issues such as tax and agricultural policies.

You cannot possibly call them a huge ally given that they have, in fact, decided to run away.

But the interesting point you raise is "fellow English speaking". Ireland does share that general level of laziness with the UK of not bothering to improve their ability to communicate with other EU countries in other languages. Perhaps if we, and they, were not so lazy as to assume everyone speaks English, things might be different.

BTW, Malta includes English as a national language.

topmanamillion

Calina wrote: »

You cannot possibly call them a huge ally given that they have, in fact, decided to run away.

But the interesting point you raise is "fellow English speaking". Ireland does share that general level of laziness with the UK of not bothering to improve their ability to communicate with other EU countries in other languages. Perhaps if we, and they, were not so lazy as to assume everyone speaks English, things might be different.

BTW, Malta includes English as a national language.

Of course I can call them an ally within the EU while they were there.

And best of luck to the 420,000 English speaking inhabitants of Malta. Somehow, I cant see them being as important to us in the EU as the 65million populated UK.

First Up

topmanamillion wrote:

Who exactly are these friends? Not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it but we have very little ties with similar sized EU countries (most of whom are in eastern Europe), larger countries such as Germany and France have consistently attacked our low corporation tax.

We have friends at the top table, where decisions are taken. The result of many years of smart diplomacy and constructive contributions (in stark contrast to the Brits).

We don't have the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU and our income tax is among the highest. Tax is a sovereign competence. The main gripe is over the trans-national loopholes that everyone wants closed.

topmanamillion wrote:

"We have many friends in Europe" is a huge myth. We`ve an international image of being good craic alright and a few of the lads sang to nuns and babies at the Euros but I cant see that being of any use when it comes to the EU negotiating Brexit. We will have a peripheral say in Brexit as we do in most other EU matters.

Nothing to do with happy football fans. We are taken seriously where it matters. We will be clearly on the EU side of the table on the Brexit stuff but our land border is a unique issue and will be addressed as constructively and sympathetically as possible.

topmanamillion wrote:

There is no doubt we`ve lost a massive ally at the EU table in the UK. A fellow English speaking country who supported us on many issues such as tax and agricultural policies.

Agree to some extent but I wouldn't over-state their support for our concerns. We've cooperated tactically on some issues and differed on others. We are major competitors for FDI - no love lost there.

Not sharing the table (as equals) with the UK will be a loss and there is a risk they will revert to treating us as a former colony. But we are in the EU and they soon won't be and when it comes to the crunch we will do our share of holding the door open for them.

topmanamillion

First Up wrote: »

We have friends at the top table, where decisions are taken. The result of many years of smart diplomacy and constructive contributions (in stark contrast to the Brits)..

The silence was deafening from our "friends" during Irelands negotiations with the EU/IMF.

First Up wrote: »

We don't have the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU and our income tax is among the highest. Tax is a sovereign competence. The main gripe is over the trans-national loopholes that everyone wants closed.

There are proposals in the EU to harmonise tax across all member states. Not only would that close loopholes but it would remove all competitive advantage Ireland has in the area. Something EU states with higher corporate tax would be delighted about.

First Up wrote: »

Nothing to do with happy football fans. We are taken seriously where it matters. We will be clearly on the EU side of the table on the Brexit stuff but our land border is a unique issue and will be addressed as constructively and sympathetically as possible.

That may well be but it will come down to the interests of 5M people V that of 500M people.
The likes of Germany and France will be driven by populous opinion itself driven by terrorism fears. While the likelihood of Jihadists swarming through Newry might be extremely remote, the ordinary joe soap German or French person wont care. They are terrified and want the borders on the EU closed, end of story. The simple fact is the North and the South will be the western border of the EU. Any notion that there wont be some form of restriction on movement and trade is just fanciful thinking.

The example of Norway (not in the EU) and Denmark (in the EU) is a good comparison. Many people commute between both countries as the do between the North and South. Recently people have had to produce I.D/passports to do so. I can see a similar situation materialising here.

First Up wrote: »

Agree to some extent but I wouldn't over-state their support for our concerns. We've cooperated tactically on some issues and differed on others. We are major competitors for FDI - no love lost there.

Not sharing the table (as equals) with the UK will be a loss and there is a risk they will revert to treating us as a former colony. But we are in the EU and they soon won't be and when it comes to the crunch we will do our share of holding the door open for them.

Again, we are one voice among 28. I would question our ability to act as even a doorstop.

First Up

topmanamillion wrote:

The silence was deafening from our "friends" during Irelands negotiations with the EU/IMF.

Which part of our bail out should have been better?

topmanamillion wrote:

There are proposals in the EU to harmonise tax across all member states. Not only would that close loopholes but it would remove all competitive advantage Ireland has in the area. Something EU states with higher corporate tax would be delighted about.

States with higher corporate tax rates can lower them any time they want.

topmanamillion wrote:

That may well be but it will come down to the interests of 5M people V that of 500M people. The likes of Germany and France will be driven by populous opinion itself driven by terrorism fears. While the likelihood of Jihadists swarming through Newry might be extremely remote, the ordinary joe soap German or French person wont care. They are terrified and want the borders on the EU closed, end of story. The simple fact is the North and the South will be the western border of the EU. Any notion that there wont be some form of restriction on movement and trade is just fanciful thinking.

Did anyone suggest otherwise?

topmanamillion wrote:

The example of Norway (not in the EU) and Denmark (in the EU) is a good comparison. Many people commute between both countries as the do between the North and South. Recently people have had to produce I.D/passports to do so. I can see a similar situation materialising here.

Which entirely contradicts your previous paragraph.

topmanamillion wrote:

Again, we are one voice among 28. I would question our ability to act as even a doorstop.

Read what I said.

topmanamillion

First Up wrote: »

Which part of our bail out should have been better?

Bond holders should have been burnt. The European central bank wouldn't allow it as it was contra to German interests.
Not only my opinion, but that of IMF deputy director Ajai Chopra.

First Up wrote: »

States with higher corporate tax rates can lower them any time they want.

Just as we are free to lower our minimum wage to compete with China and India.

First Up wrote: »

Did anyone suggest otherwise?.

You did right here:

First Up wrote: »

We will be clearly on the EU side of the table on the Brexit stuff but our land border is a unique issue and will be addressed as constructively and sympathetically as possible.

First Up wrote: »

Which entirely contradicts your previous paragraph.

Read what I said.

I believe there is no room for any land border on the island of Ireland. Its contra to the good Friday agreement. There is no contradiction in giving the example of Denmark and Norway adopting a stricter border and envisaging a similar border appearing on this island.
The stark difference is, while Norway and Denmark are culturally similar, Ireland encompasses the entire island with shared citizenship existing. Any move to impose a border should not be taken lightly as it will restrict/impair the movement of Irish citizens within their own country. An untenable situation.

Calina

topmanamillion wrote: »

The stark difference is, while Norway and Denmark are culturally similar, Ireland encompasses the entire island with shared citizenship existing. Any move to impose a border should not be taken lightly as it will restrict/impair the movement of Irish citizens within their own country. An untenable situation.

130,000 people commute from France, Belgium and Germany into Luxembourg every day for work.

Ireland is absolutely not unique in the commuting side of things and a border existed for quite a while.

If you don't want a border imposed, you need to take this up with the British. This mess is their fault. Not the EU's.

Nody

topmanamillion wrote: »

I believe there is no room for any land border on the island of Ireland. Its contra to the good Friday agreement. There is no contradiction in giving the example of Denmark and Norway adopting a stricter border and envisaging a similar border appearing on this island.

You are aware that the same border control applied between Sweden and Denmark as well both being EU countries yes? Your example was honestly completely grasping things from the air to make an issue out of nothing.

The stark difference is, while Norway and Denmark are culturally similar, Ireland encompasses the entire island with shared citizenship existing. Any move to impose a border should not be taken lightly as it will restrict/impair the movement of Irish citizens within their own country. An untenable situation.

Irish citizens are free to travel through out their country, Northern Ireland is not part of the Irish republic no matter what a few nutters like to go around claiming so adding border controls is a non issue. If and when they are added it will be exactly the same as if an Irish person tried to travel to Sweden (border controls to check ID) and the good Friday agreement will be modified to match the new reality.

topmanamillion

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that the same border control applied between Sweden and Denmark as well both being EU countries yes? Your example was honestly completely grasping things from the air to make an issue out of nothing.

Irish citizens are free to travel through out their country, Northern Ireland is not part of the Irish republic no matter what a few nutters like to go around claiming so adding border controls is a non issue. If and when they are added it will be exactly the same as if an Irish person tried to travel to Sweden (border controls to check ID) and the good Friday agreement will be modified to match the new reality.

It a not a non issue to reintroduce border controls. Absolutely pathetic thing to say and shows a complete lack of understanding.

I never said anything about Northern Ireland being a part of the Republic, the fact remains people born in Northern Ireland have dual citizenship, many identify solely as Irish citizens. Any proposal to restrict their movement or tariff goods is of grave concern.

Calina wrote: »

130,000 people commute from France, Belgium and Germany into Luxembourg every day for work.

Ireland is absolutely not unique in the commuting side of things and a border existed for quite a while.

If you don't want a border imposed, you need to take this up with the British. This mess is their fault. Not the EU's.

See above re pathetic comment and lack of understanding.

Imposing a border is a red line issue for me as I'm sure it is for many Irish citizens either side of the partition be they unionists, nationalist or of no affiliation.
I have no interest in blame games. The situation is what it is. A solution needs to be found with no border and that means no I.D checks and no tariffs.

KingBrian2

The Brits did not pay much attention to the finer points of the GFA when they voted to leave the EU. It was irrelevant to their lives. The IRA stopped killing their citizens long ago so staying in the EU was just a bonus for them. Free holidays and exotic food.

First Up

topmanamillion wrote:

Bond holders should have been burnt. The European central bank wouldn't allow it as it was contra to German interests. Not only my opinion, but that of IMF deputy director Ajai Chopra.

Burning bondholders would have destroyed our credibility as a borrower as well as risked de-stabilising the banking sector across Europe. It was a judgement by the ECB and I am very grateful for it.

topmanamillion wrote:

Just as we are free to lower our minimum wage to compete with China and India.

Don't be silly.

topmanamillion wrote:

You did right here:

Not the same point at all.

topmanamillion wrote:

I believe there is no room for any land border on the island of Ireland. Its contra to the good Friday agreement. There is no contradiction in giving the example of Denmark and Norway adopting a stricter border and envisaging a similar border appearing on this island. The stark difference is, while Norway and Denmark are culturally similar, Ireland encompasses the entire island with shared citizenship existing. Any move to impose a border should not be taken lightly as it will restrict/impair the movement of Irish citizens within their own country. An untenable situation.

Ah, I see.

Wanderer78

First Up wrote: »

Burning bondholders would have destroyed our credibility as a borrower as well as risked de-stabilising the banking sector across Europe. It was a judgement by the ECB and I am very grateful for it.

its gonna be very interesting to see what happens in italy in the coming months as the ecb has requested them to burn their bond holders, always nice to see double standards being applied in the eu to!

Jaggo

People seem to have just accepted that a border is bad but are we really sure it is. While I accept that it would be bad on the political level, I am not sure it is bad at an economic level.

Our trade with the North is in deficit. Our exports are a limited amount of agricultural products and pharma(that will not be effected by tariffs). Whereas we import at large amount of food, construction services and administrative services. Interestingly enough, these are exactly the labour intensive industries that could potentially be used in the recovery of the regions outside Dublin.

Furthermore, if Northern Ireland uses the devaluation of the pound, and the removal of employment law to reduce costs, we could see a devastating loss of jobs in the border region. Add this to the potential loss of tax revenue from trade moving north and maybe smuggling why have we just accepted that not having a border is a good thing?

First Up

Its true that N.I stands to lose a bigger market than we do but I'm of the view that all barriers to trade restrict growth and opportunity so a border of any sort is bad news.

Remember that in former times it was just a border between two states. Now it will be the border between the EU and a third country and all the more complex and time-consuming for that. Not the same scope for local flexibility.

A lot of small Irish companies that sell to N.I don't have the resources to find other markets. On the other hand, Northern Irish agriculture will be devastated by the loss of EU subsidies and that could play out in several ways.

One of the biggest impacts will be on logistics - good shipped from mainland Britain via N.I to customers in the Republic and vice versa. That trade may continue but with higher costs.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that the same border control applied between Sweden and Denmark as well both being EU countries yes? Your example was honestly completely grasping things from the air to make an issue out of nothing.

Irish citizens are free to travel through out their country, Northern Ireland is not part of the Irish republic no matter what a few nutters like to go around claiming so adding border controls is a non issue. If and when they are added it will be exactly the same as if an Irish person tried to travel to Sweden (border controls to check ID) and the good Friday agreement will be modified to match the new reality.

The border issue is not as clearcut as you think and there was at least an understanding that the nature of the border would remain unchanged.
If NI is outside the customs Union you will also have a border through the all Ireland economy. Country of origin issues will become massively costly as will non tarriff barriers. The result will be reduced trade between the parts of Ireland and reduced movements of people. Again all this is contrary at least to the spirit of the GFA. Legal matters are still at hand.
You should also note that if there is a messy hard Brexit with no mutual recognition agreement then all goods will have to tested at the border and cross border farming, livestock movement will cease. This is a real possibility thanks to Brexiters having no plan for a Brexit referendum win.

Also, If Theresa May tries to fulfill her promise to leave the ECHR if re-elected in 2020 then we are looking at a serious threat to the GFA as it is an International agreement overseen by the ECHR (a court which the British initially set up).

Ferrari3600

Hmmm!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/03/uk-ambassador-to-eu-quits-amid-brexit-row

First Up

Ferrari3600 wrote:

Hmmm!

I wonder did he jump or was he pushed. Rogers never sang the Brexit song and his sucessor is likely to be more gung ho as they leap off the cliff.

The odds on a hard Brexit have certainly shortened.

demfad

First Up wrote: »

I wonder did he jump or was he pushed. Rogers never sang the Brexit song and his sucessor is likely to be more gung ho as they leap off the cliff.

The odds on a hard Brexit have certainly shortened.

The story last year about him suggesting it would take 10 years to work out a FTA was leaked apparently to put pressure on May to get rid of him.
This was the UKs most experienced negotiator. This suits the Hard Brexit side.
It is becoming increasingly clear that they dont care if Brexit will be good for their citizens or bad, they just want out.
The Irish court case on irrevocability becomes vital.
This would allow parliament to reject a deal (or no deal) and revoke A50, or allow another referendum if public opinion had shifted.

More detail here

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/why_i_m_challenging_article_50_at_the_irish_high_court_1_4830324?platform=hootsuite&utm_content=buffer8bfa3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Nody

First Up wrote: »

I wonder did he jump or was he pushed. Rogers never sang the Brexit song and his sucessor is likely to be more gung ho as they leap off the cliff.

The odds on a hard Brexit have certainly shortened.

Well I'm sure Boris can double hat in the role as well... Talking about fun facts; how about the fact there will be 400k new jobs when Brexit is completed through writing trade deals with the same countries already having trade deals with EU? Brexit math at it's best; oh we leave a free trade agreement and when we sign the same agreement again we'll get magically 400k new jobs while not losing any jobs on our side. Seriously the Brexit claims are really starting to get desperate at this stage...

First Up

Nody wrote:

when Brexit is completed through writing trade deals with the same countries already having trade deals with EU? Brexit math at it's best; oh we leave a free trade agreement and when we sign the same agreement again we'll get magically 400k new jobs while not losing any jobs on our side. Seriously the Brexit claims are really starting to get desperate at this stage...

And don't forget the really great deal they are going to do with the EU to replace membership of the single market......

You couldn't make this stuff up.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

Well I'm sure Boris can double hat in the role as well... Talking about fun facts; how about the fact there will be 400k new jobs when Brexit is completed through writing trade deals with the same countries already having trade deals with EU? Brexit math at it's best; oh we leave a free trade agreement and when we sign the same agreement again we'll get magically 400k new jobs while not losing any jobs on our side. Seriously the Brexit claims are really starting to get desperate at this stage...

Michael Gove was cornered on a twitter exchange yesterday about that report. He wouldnt answer the question if he had read the report or not!
He kept asking other twitter users to reveal how they had voted and apologise (for voting remain I think). There were some prominent guys involved like the QC bringing the case to the Irish High court.
He literally doesnt know what will happen and doesn't care. If lies get Brexit through, so be it.
A lot of the extra jobs will be in customs and regulation. To be free of ECJ rules the UK must replace 32 regulatory bodies.
The great repeal Bill may take a decade also. There is a massive amount of work just to make a hard Brexit orderly. I dont think there is enough time for an orderly Brexit.
I was hoping they were going to concede the necessity of staying in the Single market transitionally (probably permanently). This makes that harder.

Edit: Government here needs to look at trade logistics.
Another trade route to Europe perhaps Cork to Brest (shortest sea crossing). A lot of our stock are stored in ware houses in the middle east.
We need to shift some of that to Britanny. It avoids the short term catastophe of strangled ports around the channel due to no regulatory agreement. And is a good long term redundancy move also. Im sure wed get EU funding. Would put more pressure on UK too.

Edit 2: Boris double acting would surely prompt teh return of great British satire. Yes Mr foreign minister?