Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

trellheim wrote: »

That's a bit pessimistic - your case basically says its a slide over the cliff with no redemption - do we really believe that ? Worse, we will shoulder a lot of the fallout

Is it? Theresa May had to do a deal with the one party whose values match British values the least. She needs a deal that will satisfy at least most of her MP's, the DUP and possibly a few Labour centrists/right wingers if she can't get all of her MP's on board.

trellheim wrote: »

I can nearly guarantee you foreign affairs and the other govt departments are frantically trying to get the EU onside to keep it light while looking over the shoulder at the UK going "throw us a frickin bone here" . However as you do point out the current UK governments best answer at the mo where this issue is concerned is self-annihilation over principle.

That's as maybe but it's May, Davis, Fox and Johnson in the driving seat and the destination does not appear to be conducive to prosperity.

Sam Russell

Infini wrote: »

I honestly think there is no squaring it. Its down to 3 options

1) 2nd Referendum
2) Agree to all the EUs conditions
3) Hard Brexit with severe economic and diplomatic damage.

I honestly wish the UK would just drop the BS and go with option 1 if they dont want option 3 to happen because they will be forced to take 2 regardless if they dont want to ruin their country.

Think were all tired at this stage of the endless stonewalling.

1} Of course a second referendum does not need to ask the same question, or even give a simple yes/no answer.

2} The EU conditions depend on the red lines. Rub out a few lines and the EU offer changes.

3} Hard Brexit is almost trade war - no-one wants that bar a few nutters. The Irish border will be a side show compared to UK/France [Dover/Calais].

What ever makes you think that there are not dark forces looking to ruin their country?

Charles Babbage

The election system in Britain has a lot to answer for. If an Irish style system was there then in some constituencies they would still vote Conservative, but not necessarily for the nutters, and preferences from other parties would go to the more sensible individuals.

Enzokk

There was a fascinating vote in the House of Commons last night on school meals. As you would expect from the Tories they voted against a Labour motion on cuts on free school meals. The interesting thing for me on this vote was the following, firstly this is the kind of bills that will lose the Tories their majority at the next election. It will not be Brexit but local policies that will hurt families even more after 8 years of austerity that is not ending under this government.

The second thing is that the DUP supported the Government. That is not surprising as they are in a agreement with the Tories. What is galling is that they received a exemption from these cuts in NI. So the cuts are okay for poor people in England but the poor of Northern Ireland needs to be protected. DUP MP Jim Shannon attacked the cuts earlier in the day but voted for it later.

The DUP has also secured more funding for the North in the latest spring statement by the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Secretary.

Some quotes from the story:

The only DUP MP to abstain in the vote on free school meals was Emma Little-Pengelly.

Her nine colleagues backed the Tories, including Jim Shannon, who had signed an early day motion attacking the cuts planned for England.

-

In a further boost to the Northern Ireland party, Chancellor Philip Hammond also agreed in his Spring Statement to a consultation on the scrapping of air passenger duty in the province.

A tranche of £410m in new funding for Belfast was released by Northern Ireland Secretary Karen Bradley last week, including £80m for “immediate health and education pressures”.

With the Northern Ireland’s power-sharing government suspended, the UK government now directly sets its budget and has decided to maintain the £14,000 threshold for the province secured by the DUP last year.

Free School Meal Eligibility Cuts Go Ahead In England After Tory And DUP MPs Vote For Universal Credit Changes

trellheim

Is it in the Irish interest to push the EU for the easiest possible Brexit ... discuss...

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

Is it in the Irish interest to push the EU for the easiest possible Brexit ... discuss...

No. it is in the Irish interest that Brexit never happens at all.

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Is it in the Irish interest to push the EU for the easiest possible Brexit ... discuss...

Have you tried reading the thread?

AS Zubeneschamali says, the best outcome is that Brexit doesn't happen at all.

Failing that, the next best is of course that Brexit happens in as little meaningful way as possible.

There really is nothing to discuss. The only discussion is around whether Brexit is even worth it for the British themselves.

Harika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No. it is in the Irish interest that Brexit never happens at all.

It is in the interest of the Irish, UK and EU that it doesn't happen.

trellheim

There really is nothing to discuss. The only discussion is around whether Brexit is even worth it for the British themselves.

We are on post 5959

Defining it in terms of "worth to the people of the UK" frequently crops up and misses why this is happening at all; they voted to leave.

My point was strictly in the Irish interest; denying they are leaving at all , or saying "never happen" is not a good basis for planning.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

denying they are leaving at all , or saying "never happen" is not a good basis for planning.

Of course we should plan for the worst, mostly so that we can call their bluff when they say No Deal is better than the Canada deal they will be offered.

Leroy42

This was your post

trellheim wrote: »

Is it in the Irish interest to push the EU for the easiest possible Brexit ... discuss...

trellheim wrote: »

We are on post 5959

Defining it in terms of "worth to the people of the UK" frequently crops up and misses why this is happening at all; they voted to leave.

My point was strictly in the Irish interest; denying they are leaving at all , or saying "never happen" is not a good basis for planning.

Now you have moved the goalposts to whether we are planning for it or not.

Do you have any input/opinion on it?

demfad

trellheim wrote: »

We are on post 5959

Defining it in terms of "worth to the people of the UK" frequently crops up and misses why this is happening at all; they voted to leave.

My point was strictly in the Irish interest; denying they are leaving at all , or saying "never happen" is not a good basis for planning.

The UK is a parlaimentary democracy so the 'they' in question is the UK parliament. That is why this thing can unhappen if the UK parliament says so.
Ergo Brexit is not a done deal until March 2019 so reversing it is still very much on the table until then and discussing it is legitimate.

Leroy42

It is strange that Brexit has utilised the 'will of the people' to effectively remove the sovereignty from the parliament itself. It appears that individual MP's are no longer allowed to state any view that is different from the result of the vote.

One wonders how long this will last

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is strange that Brexit has utilised the 'will of the people' to effectively remove the sovereignty from the parliament itself. It appears that individual MP's are no longer allowed to state any view that is different from the result of the vote.

One wonders how long this will last

30th March 2019 when it will no longer be the will of the people but those people over there's fault instead. Who those people are will of course be dependent on which politician you talk to; be it the Tories, EU as a whole, unelected bureaucrats etc. and a surprising number of people will claim to have been remainers all along.

trellheim

Now you have moved the goalposts to whether we are planning for it or not.

Do you have any input/opinion on it?

Yes of course I do ; I firmly believe the focus should be on minimizing the impact on Ireland, and part of that should be pushing the rest of the EU to go easy on it and forward planning for that. The wrong Brexit will badly affect us. There are certain things we can and should be doing.

Leroy42

What do you mean by easy? Do you mean they should continue to have access with no responsibilities? Do you mean they should have a bigger say in the drafting of regulations but be free to operate outside them?
Should they have to abide by the regulations such as beef traceability or can they be let away with that?

Should they be allowed to strike trade deals with other nations giving them a competitive advantage over us and thus costing us jobs whilst still having access to all the benefits?

We are trying to minimise the impact on Ireland by at the least having no border on the Island.

Water John

It's simple. Giving you the line, that they voted to leave and will do so, (though, I agree with Demfad), if the UK stays in the SM and CU is our obvious preference.

steddyeddy

trellheim wrote: »

Yes of course I do ; I firmly believe the focus should be on minimizing the impact on Ireland, and part of that should be pushing the rest of the EU to go easy on it and forward planning for that. The wrong Brexit will badly affect us. There are certain things we can and should be doing.

Depends what you mean by going easy on it. The EU are reiterating their conditions for trade and freedom of movement and the UK are ignoring them. There's not much the EU or Ireland can do in the face of such abject stupidity.

Capt'n Midnight

This is grim. If you are an EU worker in the UK , you've lost because of the fall in sterling, real pay has frozen as costs rise and now there's a huge tax hike on the horizon.

It's the economy, stupid *
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43397798

The Institute for Fiscal Studies added that dismal productivity, earnings and GDP growth had become the "new normal".
...
"If high-paid jobs - and EU citizens, who are well represented among high earners in the UK - relocate elsewhere, the consequences for the Exchequer will be severe," he added.

Given the outlook, the IFS said tax rises of £30bn would be needed each year to retain public spending and balance the budget by the middle of the next decade - a Conservative Party pledge.

*The other Slogans from Clinton's 1992 campaign were
Change vs. more of the same
Don't forget health care.

Jim2007

trellheim wrote: »

Yes of course I do ; I firmly believe the focus should be on minimizing the impact on Ireland, and part of that should be pushing the rest of the EU to go easy on it and forward planning for that. The wrong Brexit will badly affect us. There are certain things we can and should be doing.

You need to be very clear on one thing, neither we nor the other 26 states representing about 450m people are about to give up on our purpose or principles for the sake of a third country - the UK. Yes of course we will do our best to minimise the impact, but if the choice is principles versus the UK then principles wins every time.

Water John

TM now having to go to the EU and ask for support on sanctions against Russia.

trellheim

ou need to be very clear on one thing, neither we nor the other 26 states representing about 450m people are about to give up on our purpose or principles for the sake of a third country - the UK. Yes of course we will do our best to minimise the impact, but if the choice is principles versus the UK then principles wins every time.

What ? You don't see a place for pragmatism here ? Which particular principles are you defending here. If Irish people ( in Ireland ) are the worse for Brexit over our own principles, have we "won every time" to use your own words ?

J Mysterio

Water John wrote: »

TM now having to go to the EU and ask for support on sanctions against Russia.

She's really getting wobbly is May. Reacting to all of this in a pretty amateur way it seems. It's just reactionary chaos over there. Wildly stumbling from one disaster to the next.

Enzokk

trellheim wrote: »

What ? You don't see a place for pragmatism here ? Which particular principles are you defending here. If Irish people ( in Ireland ) are the worse for Brexit over our own principles, have we "won every time" to use your own words ?

You haven't answered what you meant by taking it easy with the UK. The UK has made it very difficult for us as we are in a tough position where we are going to lose out because of a decision that we didn't make. However the worse decision would be to do the same as the UK, so yeah winning for us right now will hurt. But it will hurt less than the win UKIP is celebrating in the UK right now.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

Is it in the Irish interest to push the EU for the easiest possible Brexit ... discuss...

An easy Brexit is very much in our interests.

And, yes, it is very much in our interests to push for an easy Brexit. With you so far.

But here's where we part company: you want us to push the EU?

That's mad, Ted. There's no need to push the EU. The EU's preferred outcome, obviously, would have been no Brexit at all. But that's off the table now, given the referendum outcome and the positions taken since by the UK government. The EU's next best option would have been that the UK would remain in the Single Market, in the Custom Union, join the EEA, etc, etc, but these are all being ruled out by the British and their absurd "red lines".

Are you seeing the pattern here? It's not the EU that putting increasing distance between the EU and the UK; it's the UK that's doing that. The EU wants the closest possible relationship; the UK has been putting barrier after barrier after barrier in the way.

In so far as Ireland is in a position to push anybody, we should be pushing the UK. In terms of minimising the impact on Ireland, all the threats to us stem from decisions the UK makes, positions the UK takes. The EU's reaction to those has been entirely rational, and entirely predictable. They have devised the closest relationship they feel is feasible, given the barriers the UK has erected. In doing that, they have prioritised Ireland's interests, which (happily) align with the EU's interests). The have signalled that, if the UK can lower some of its barriers, the EU would be very keen to have a closer relationship, and that would certainly minimise the impact on us. What is needed is for the UK to accept what the EU is offering, but only the UK can do that.

Whatever influence we have should be devoted to getting the UK to accept the easier Brexit that the EU is keen to offer them.

murphaph

trellheim wrote: »

What ? You don't see a place for pragmatism here ? Which particular principles are you defending here. If Irish people ( in Ireland ) are the worse for Brexit over our own principles, have we "won every time" to use your own words ?

We have to play the long game. The common and later single market has benefited Ireland immensely, much much more so than our "close economic ties" with the UK before joining the EEC.

We have perhaps benefited at least as well as other countries like Germany as we are an exporting nation.

It is annoying for us that the UK has chosen this path and we will be disproportionately affected by it but I believe we might suffer a worse fate if the single market is diluted for the benefit of the UK. We don't just export to the UK. We compete within the single market with the UK.

Ireland should pursue a policy of massive encouragement of UK companies to Ireland. We owe them nothing.

LeinsterDub

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/15/david-davis-says-he-could-live-with-shorter-brexit-transition-period

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has said he “could live with” a 21-month transition period as Britain leaves the EU. He made the concession, demanded by commission negotiators, with EU talks in Brussels a week away.

A other win for the EU . At this stage I don't know the UK just doesn't go away and sit in a corner and just sign whatever the EU produces or just declare they are going to a hard brexit now.

Skedaddle

It was interesting to hear an Irish tech company this morning on the news having their IPO on the NASDAQ North in Sweden. Their spokesperson mentioned they didn't list in London at least partially because of Brexit uncertainties. Although, they seemed to be very focused on the North American and Scandinavian markets so the listing made sense and NASDAQ is a great brand for tech companies, Brexit appeared to be a consideration.

I wonder though, how many other companies around Europe have decided to avoid London markets and Brexit potential chaos?

Leroy42

The problem is that Brexit has given the companies a reason to rethink any move or stay in the UK.

Whether they actually do or not is only the outcome, but UK have created the possibility to lose investment and jobs and I have yet to see anything that forms a basis as an advantage to counteract that.

It is a highly competitive global marketplace for FDI investment, and getting rid of one of the key advantages seems odd to say the least. The only response I have heard, either here or from the politicians, is that the UK is a great place and a large market. Both of them are of course true, but they had them already, with the addition of being with the EU.

Water John

I think Unilever are due to announce today that their sole HQ will in future, be in Rotterdam. When will the British public and their politicians start getting the hint.

demfad

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/15/david-davis-says-he-could-live-with-shorter-brexit-transition-period



A other win for the EU . At this stage I don't know the UK just doesn't go away and sit in a corner and just sign whatever the EU produces or just declare they are going to a hard brexit now.

As it is not possible to negotiate even a very simple FTA in this time period this effectively means that the UK will face the cliff-edge 21 months after Brexit i.e. leaving with no deal in place.

ancapailldorcha

Unfortunately, it looks like Unilever are pulling out of the UK in favor of the Netherlands:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43410155

I thought that this would be more common but I think it might be down to confidence in industry that some form of deal between the EU and the UK might still come to pass which will retain a good amount of access to the single market.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

I think Unilever are due to announce today that their sole HQ will in future, be in Rotterdam. When will the British public and their politicians start getting the hint.

This was stated on SKY News this morning, but they served up a lot of spoof about how this was just streamlining of corporate blahdeblah and no jobs would be lost in the UK as a result.

Uh-huh, sure.

VinLieger

trellheim wrote: »

Yes of course I do ; I firmly believe the focus should be on minimizing the impact on Ireland, and part of that should be pushing the rest of the EU to go easy on it and forward planning for that. The wrong Brexit will badly affect us. There are certain things we can and should be doing.

Go easy how? Like just stop pushing the UK for any concrete plans at all on what they want or how they suggest to achieve it? Cus that sounds like a quick and easy path to a hard brexit going by their behaviour so far.

Literally all the EU have done so far as is ask "so what do you want and how do you plan to do it?" and the reply has been akin to that of a screaming child throwing a tantrum every time consisting of "BREXIT MEANS BREXIT"

trellheim

But here's where we part company: you want us to push the EU?

That's mad, Ted. There's no need to push the EU. The EU's preferred outcome, obviously, would have been no Brexit at all. But that's off the table now, given the referendum outcome and the positions taken since by the UK government. The EU's next best option would have been that the UK would remain in the Single Market, in the Custom Union, join the EEA, etc, etc, but these are all being ruled out by the British and their absurd "red lines".

Are you seeing the pattern here? It's not the EU that putting increasing distance between the EU and the UK; it's the UK that's doing that. The EU wants the closest possible relationship; the UK has been putting barrier after barrier after barrier in the way.

In so far as Ireland is in a position to push anybody, we should be pushing the UK. In terms of minimising the impact on Ireland, all the threats to us stem from decisions the UK makes, positions the UK takes. The EU's reaction to those has been entirely rational, and entirely predictable. They have devised the closest relationship they feel is feasible, given the barriers the UK has erected. In doing that, they have prioritised Ireland's interests, which (happily) align with the EU's interests). The have signalled that, if the UK can lower some of its barriers, the EU would be very keen to have a closer relationship, and that would certainly minimise the impact on us. What is needed is for the UK to accept what the EU is offering, but only the UK can do that.

Whatever influence we have should be devoted to getting the UK to accept the easier Brexit that the EU is keen to offer them.

Completely accept all of that. But - its only one side of the equation ! - it does not benefit Ireland - quite the reverse - the harder the Brexit is .

We can affect two sides of that albeit indirectly on on one side - the UK side and the EU side. Strikes me both sides should be worked.

Taoiseach and Coveney have been consistent on this - that we need to be the UK's best friend in negotiating their Brexit because its in Ireland's best interest to do so.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This was stated on SKY News this morning, but they served up a lot of spoof about how this was just streamlining of corporate blahdeblah and no jobs would be lost in the UK as a result.

Uh-huh, sure.

It is just a streamlining of the rather odd and unwieldy corporate structure.

The key bit though is that it opted to become Dutch rather than British. It reflects poorly on the UKs attractiveness as a location for a headquarters.

Harika

Deleted User wrote: »

It is just a streamlining of the rather odd and unwieldy corporate structure.

The key bit though is that it opted to become Dutch rather than British. It reflects poorly on the UKs attractiveness as a location for a headquarters.

Financial Time looks at it from both sides: https://www.ft.com/content/4fcd127c-282e-11e8-b27e-cc62a39d57a0

and comes to this conclusion:

This has nothing to do with politics at all. It is really about mergers and acquisitions — being able to more easily do them, as much as block them from the US.

Read what Unilever has actually said: “The proposed simplification will provide greater flexibility for strategic portfolio change and help drive long-term performance.” Expect more deals — across whichever borders you care about.

CrabRevolution

trellheim wrote: »

Completely accept all of that. But - its only one side of the equation ! - it does not benefit Ireland - quite the reverse - the harder the Brexit is .

We can affect two sides of that albeit indirectly on on one side - the UK side and the EU side. Strikes me both sides should be worked.

Taoiseach and Coveney have been consistent on this - that we need to be the UK's best friend in negotiating their Brexit because its in Ireland's best interest to do so.

Imagine we did that and gave the UK the cakeist deal you want to give them.

We'd then have a neighbour which gets to negotiate its own trade terms but at the same time trade freely with the EU. Gets to set its own standards yet export to the EU with no checks. They'd be able to lower working standards and remove regulations that the rest us have to abide by. They'd also get a bigger say in EU affairs than they do now since in the cakeist ideal they're treated as being equal to the entire EU.

Can you not see the huge advantage that would give them, and how it would attract companies away from Ireland?

Not to mention the fact it would destroy the EU. The ink won't yet have dried on the "cake treaty" before other countries immediately announce they are leaving the EU and want the same deal the UK got. Greece will demand no more financial regulation, Poland will insist on no refugee arrangements etc.

Our economy along with the entire European economy would tank as the single market collapses.

It's in Ireland and the EUs interests to stop brexit, or failing that to hold the line and insist that if brexit means brexit, then being an EU member means being an EU member. You can't choose what you want with no responsibilities.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

Strikes me both sides should be worked.

As long as our policy is to reaffirm EU solidarity and cohesion, the EU will be 100% on our side in negotiations with the UK.

If we make the EU choose between cohesion and narrow Irish interests in trade with the UK, they will choose cohesion.

trellheim

Imagine we did that and gave the UK the cakeist deal you want to give them.

Cakeist ? There will be enough in the 26 other countries pushing hard enough for blood , no need for us to push hard.

I think my point is being misunderstood; its in our interest to be the 1 out of the 27 being the best friend. Cakeist lol. Do you honestly think I want to give them an easy ride ? It's Ireland's interests for me - first last and always and that absolutely demands a pragmatic approach here.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

its in our interest to be the 1 out of the 27 being the best friend.

UK policy from Day 1 has been to try and divide us from the EU.

Divide and conquer. Best friend my hole, they would drag us out with them if they could.

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

UK policy from Day 1 has been to try and divide us from the EU.

Divide and conquer. Best friend my hole, they would drag us out with them if they could.

Many of the leavers like boris, farrage et al have tried to push the false line that we would be better off joining them, sure didnt nigel come over and make people pay a couple of hundred quid last month so they could hear him say that?

J Mysterio

VinLieger wrote: »

Go easy how? Like just stop pushing the UK for any concrete plans at all on what they want or how they suggest to achieve it? Cus that sounds like a quick and easy path to a hard brexit going by their behaviour so far.

Literally all the EU have done so far as is ask "so what do you want and how do you plan to do it?" and the reply has been akin to that of a screaming child throwing a tantrum every time consisting of "BREXIT MEANS BREXIT"

Kinda like how May stood up in Parliament and blamed Russia for the attack in Salisbury (nevermind saying this to the Security Council). It may well have been the Russians (probably was), but there's no proof of it. It could have been framed to have been the Russians, it could have been a False Flag. It could have been Spectre.

The point is that if you havent done the work, and have evidence on your assertions, you are just going by your 'feelings' and 'feelings' are not a basis to conduct international diplomacy, or trade. It's an embarassment. They are laughing their holes off in Russia, whether or not they are culpable. Amateur hour.

UK said invitation to Lavrov was withdrawn. Lavrov's spokeswoman said 'he hadnt accepted the invitation yet'.

Skedaddle

To be fair the Russian thing is likely to be something to do with their own internal bonkers electoral politics and trying to portray Putin as a strongman and they do have a bit of a track record of doing this kind of thing.

However, it's ridiculous that the UK and US on the one hand are understandably outraged by this incident but at the same time are effectively allowing themselves be trolled into undermining and damaging both the EU and NATO with their mutual throwing decades of pragmatism and sanity down the toilet.

Who's driving that? Is it the Russians? Is it the tabloids? Is it disaster capitalists?Or are they just becoming the catch all excuse for mornic, jingoistic, nativist, self destructive politics?

What's the point of ranting and raving about this while happily accepting oligarchs' money and being waist deep in Russian interference allegations ?!

If may were really going to do something, she would need to start by cleaning up the city of London and closing its respectabilised money laundries.

steddyeddy

trellheim wrote: »

Completely accept all of that. But - its only one side of the equation ! - it does not benefit Ireland - quite the reverse - the harder the Brexit is .

We can affect two sides of that albeit indirectly on on one side - the UK side and the EU side. Strikes me both sides should be worked.

Taoiseach and Coveney have been consistent on this - that we need to be the UK's best friend in negotiating their Brexit because its in Ireland's best interest to do so.

But the best Brexit for Ireland is for Britain to stay in the customs union. It's also the best Brexit for maintaining peace in Northern Ireland. We're pushing for that to happen and I don't see what more we can do. If we push for the EU to compromise on its principles then it might actually end up worse for us because we'll be contributing to the destabilisation of the EU.

trellheim

UK policy from Day 1 has been to try and divide us from the EU.

Divide and conquer. Best friend my hole, they would drag us out with them if they could.

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Right. How?

The Uk have decided to leave. As such, if we stay in EU then there must be a border between the UK and EU. The current UK position is that NI will form part of that split.

So we are basically faced with two options. Either side with the EU or side with the UK.

A possible third option is that we push the EU to give in to the UK demands. But that would then put us a a significant disadvantage to the UK as they could easily reduce the standards/regulations and thus undercut us.

Which are you claiming we should be doing?

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

So far, the EU have been playing a blinder on exactly this. The UK have already agreed to no deviation from EU rules and regs if they would cause a hard border.

What more do you want?

steddyeddy

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Listen you've just provided empty platitudes. What do you you want people to do?

listermint

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

..... We are.


You are just completely blind to it, it appears.