Brexit discussion thread III

Econ_

Water John wrote: »

Corbyn says the UK should be in, a CU with the EU. This would solve the NI border.
I think we all know such a Joint CU would simply mirror the EUs CU.

It's obvious the Red Top owners are getting worried about him. Going for the very old red smear.

I don't think it does. It's a pre-requisite if you want to have any chance of maintaining an invisible border. My understanding is that there would still be significant challenges with the border without the UK being fully aligned with the Single Market.

Water John

This statement is fairly clear. Absolutely transparent compared to the TM mud.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/20/uk-will-have-to-have-a-customs-union-post-brexit-says-corbyn

UK will 'have to have a customs union' post-Brexit, says Corbyn
Labour leader says access to European markets and no hard border in Northern Ireland are key to Labour’s position. (Guardian)

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what was the Turkey deal based on, or the Swiss and Canadian ones?

Years of negotiation and an expectation that future relations would be closer.

ArmaniJeanss

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That said, his mainly young base of fans and activists are in for a shock if they think he's going to stay in the single market/customs union.

A small change in his wording today about this issue, went a bit under the radar because of DD's speech and the ERG letter.

It's politically tortuous semantics - effectively his previous statements that 'they must leave the SM/CU' are being replaced by 'because they are leaving the EU they are automatically no longer in the SM/CU but there is nothing in his prior position that excludes quickly rejoining'. As I said, tortuous logic, better explained here.

Also he always has the 'Trident' get-out to fall back on - he is not a dictator and because the party (your "young base of fans and activists") have voted overwhelmingly for a policy he will go along with it.

Capt'n Midnight

On Newsnight - "a customs union not the customs union"

The Brexiteers just don't get it do they ? They can't have cake and eat it.

The Swiss deal was only meant to be transitory and not a final one, and such situations are extremely unlikely to be repeated. Not to mention that Switzerland is completely surrounded. Imports from outside the EU have massive transport costs compared to shipments to the UK so much higher barriers.

J Mysterio

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Also noteworthy that 60 names is above what's needed (48) to spark a leadership election, there's a definite 'warning shot across the bows' about it.

More than 60 and yes, this is exactly what crossed my mind.

Peregrinus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Kind of astonishing that 60 MPs actually consider the Lancaster House speech to be something that needs to be stuck to - it was a fairly mad speech and I'd assumed it was generally accepted that it was an extreme initial negotiating position that would be watered down. I'm obviously wrong.

Also noteworthy that 60 names is above what's needed (48) to spark a leadership election, there's a definite 'warning shot across the bows' about it.

J Mysterio wrote: »

More than 60 and yes, this is exactly what crossed my mind.

60 is enough to trigger a vote of confidence, but not enough to win it.

What keeps May in office is the fact that a majority of the parliamentary party would prefer a softer Brexit than the one she [seems to] talk about, or no Brexit at all, but a majority of the rank-and-file membership would, as far as we can make out, prefer a harder one. Thus despite May's political ineptitude and other failings, the party will always keep a-hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.

Charles Babbage

Peregrinus wrote: »

60 is enough to trigger a vote of confidence, but not enough to win it.

What keeps May in office is the fact that a majority of the parliamentary party would prefer a softer Brexit than the one she [seems to] talk about, or no Brexit at all, but a majority of the rank-and-file membership would, as far as we can make out, prefer a harder one. Thus despite May's political ineptitude and other failings, the party will always keep a-hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.

The problem is the membership voting for a leader, which might not be what the MPs would like.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

On Newsnight - "a customs union not the customs union"

The Brexiteers just don't get it do they ? They can't have cake and eat it.

This isn't cakeist. The European Union Customs Union consists of the EU member states, plus a few dependent or semi-dependent territories - Monaco, Guernsey, Jersey, British Cypriot bases. Then there are separate bilateral agreements with Andorra, San Marino and Turkey. In other words, Andorra, San Marino and Turkey are in a customs union with the EU, but not in the European Union Customs Union.

So, the statements that "we won't be in the customs union" and "we must have a customs union" are not inconsistent. If Corbyn moves from making one of these statements to making the other, that isn't a contradiction or a U-turn, but it is a shift in emphasis and direction, and it does suggest that, whether out of conviction or political expedience or some combination of the two, the Labour Party is shifting towards a softer Brexit.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

Corbyn says the UK should be in, a CU with the EU. This would solve the NI border.
I think we all know such a Joint CU would simply mirror the EUs CU.

Econ_ wrote: »

I don't think it does. It's a pre-requisite if you want to have any chance of maintaining an invisible border. My understanding is that there would still be significant challenges with the border without the UK being fully aligned with the Single Market.

Econ is correct. A customs union or something very very very very very like it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an open border in Ireland. You also need the single market or something very very very very very like it.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Corbyn's another one who doesn't know what he wants. The difference is that he can just sit by the sidelines and criticise while doing absolutely nothing knowing that any mistakes from the Conservatives just bring him that bit closer to number 10.

That said, his mainly young base of fans and activists are in for a shock if they think he's going to stay in the single market/customs union.

The fact he hasn't spoke out about Kate Hoey is telling.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

People wanted the government to lay out what it wants. It is doing that.

It’s a negotiation, you don’t start any negotiation at your final offer do you?

CelticRambler wrote: »

Boris Johnson says the UK wants a future with less regulation; David Davis says the UK wants a future with more, tougher regulation.

How is that laying out what it wants, and how can the UK itself having two polar opposite desires be the start of a negotiating process?

swampgas wrote: »

Yeah, but they're not even negotiating. A negotiation starts with a clear indication that you want X and you are prepared to pay Y for it. And X and Y have to be somewhat realistic or the other person can't engage.

Once an initial position is established the haggling can go on from there.

My take on this, for what it's worth.

This is more than the UK playing its cards close to its chest, and not moving immediately to its final position. The negotiations have been ongoing for nearly a year, and the UK hasn't even moved to its opening position because, for the reason Aegir points out in another post, it hasn't got one. The Tory party is deeply divided, and May lacks the authority or skills to impose a position on it.

In my view, the purpose of the present round of speeches by Johnson, May, Davis et al is not so much to provide clarity, as to be part of a process in which they are trying to develop some clarity. Later this week they're going into solemn and secret conclave in Chequers, and they're saying that they won't be coming out until they have some white smoke on at least the bones of a Brexit position. Better late than never, I suppose. But to achieve even that there are going to have to be battles among themselves, with winners and losers. And, if the government is not to disintegrate, which is something they all realise would be disastrous, the losers are going to have to accept when they lose.

I think they all understand that they have to develop a strategy, and they have to agree to support what ever strategy is developed even if it's not the one that, individually, they all want. And I think they have agreed - or have been told they have agreed - a process for this. It involves various cabinet members offering their most cherished ideas in public, and seeking public support/reaction/commentary. In short, they'll run several flags up flagpoles fairly publicly, and see what degree of salute each receives, and from whom. This information will then feed into their deliberations over which of the flags they will actually nail to their mast.

Thus, Johnson and Davis offer speeches with such divergent emphases. Each is appealing for support for their respective ideas about Brexit, hoping that if their speech is well-received by different constituencies, and particularly by constituencies in the middle ground, it is more likely to influence the decisions the Cabinet will shortly be taking on the UK's Brexit position, targets, strategies, etc. The implication is that if a speech is not well-received, that will adversely affect the degree to which the ideas in it get embodied in the UK government position, and the person who gave that speech must accept that with a good grace.

Hence, contraditions, tensions, differing emphases, etc between the speeches are not a bug; they're a feature. The whole point of the exercise is to canvas the degree of support that different approaches can muster.

Peregrinus

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact he hasn't spoke out about Kate Hoey is telling.

Actually, not so much. I think everybody knows that he and Hoey are opposed on almost every point to do with Ireland, and always have been.

Peregrinus

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The problem is the membership voting for a leader, which might not be what the MPs would like.

Exactly.

Junkyard Tom

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, not so much. I think everybody knows that he and Hoey are opposed on almost every point to do with Ireland, and always have been.

It's more than Corbyn v Hoey, this should be Labour v Hoey and Corbyn/LAB should make it explicit and should use the whip if it's possible. Also it was the CONs who were the first to engage with the peace process via Albert Reynolds and John Major's leadership so they too should be bringing the anti-GFA nutters to heel.

Econ_

Econ_ wrote: »

I don't think it does. It's a pre-requisite if you want to have any chance of maintaining an invisible border. My understanding is that there would still be significant challenges with the border without the UK being fully aligned with the Single Market.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Econ is correct. A customs union or something very very very very very like it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an open border in Ireland. You also need the single market or something very very very very very like it.

Simple way to understand this. When did NI and ROI stop having customs controls at the border? Was it in 1973 when we joined the EU (Customs Union) or was it later, in 1993 when the single market was fostered?

It is not the customs union that negated the need for customs control (evidence -> there is customs controls between EU/Turkey, ROI/NI pre 1993) between nations, but both the Customs Union and Single Market membership.

It is emminently possible that a softer border could be envisioned (softer than pre 1973) without the UK being in the Customs Union, however I would argue that that would absoutely require them to be within the Single Market (via EFTA/EEA)

Skedaddle

Customs posts ended in 1993. There were physical checks in place until then.
There was a slow phase out of aspects of customs checks as the EEC moved towards a single market. It happened in a series of steps, not as a single jump. Aspects of cross border trade were made free but it was only on the full completion of the single market that those barriers vanished entirely.

It was also no coincidence that the ability to completely remove the border coincided with the timing of the developments in the peace process in the 1990s. It was a huge symbol to republicans and nationalists that they were going to be able to have an ability to live in Northern Ireland, be Irish and for that to have no practical impedement.

You also have to remember that a lot has changed too. The EU developed and a vast amount of harmonisation took place. In the old days you still had different systems and differing standards within the EEC. Now, it's far more integrated and the external border is actually more of a significant issue because of the internal systems having been integrated. Decades ago, this wasn't the case so, there were still checks on goods and services within the EEC between countries and so on. So the external borders mattered less and odd ad hoc arrangements with 3rd countries were less of a complicated issue.

Switzerland is a bit of a grandfather deal that nobody would ever consider now. It's very problematic too and regularly gets pushed to the brink of falling apart.

Norway and Iceland are EFTA / EEA members, which makes things easier.

Then you've the small nations with obscure deals, like Andorra and Lichtenstein etc - small tax havens which are increasingly coming under the radar as they engage in bigger and bigger facilitation of tax dodging. Those deals may not last.

It would be ludicrous to suggest the UK could operate like a giant Lichtenstein.

You also can't just turn the clock back to 1973 or 1993 the systems and circumstances that existed then don't necessarily exist now and a hell of a lot has changed. The EU isn't the EC or the EEC and those bodies no longer exist. It's a bit like trying to do a deal with a country that no longer exists or a company that went out of business.

I mean you might as well be insisting that you will fly to New York on Pan Am.

trellheim

There is a negotiating strategy that is "say nothing" - Chinese inscrutability. There is sometimes an advantage to this as the other side may say things first and give away advantage.

To some it may appear this is the UK Gov strategy re Brexit shaping . This may or may not conceal the utter chaos underneath


If the UK Gov decide hard B it will be very painful but at the moment there is no other plan ( and that includes hard border )

LeinsterDub

The study is the second major report commissioned by the government on the potential effects of Brexit since 2015 and analysed 24 sectors of the Irish economy.

An in depth sector by sector analyse ,how quaint! Does anyone think Britain should consider doing one?

The worst-case scenario of a no-deal exit would result in Britain falling back on World Trade Organisation rules, amounting to a 7% hit to Ireland’s GDP by 2030, according to the study.

7% isn't too bad, obviously we want to avoid it but I thought it would be worse

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/21/hard-brexit-would-cost-irish-economy-18bn-euros-study

jobbridge4life

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An in depth sector by sector analyse ,how quaint! Does anyone think Britain should consider doing one?



7% isn't too bad, obviously we want to avoid it but I thought it would be worse

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/21/hard-brexit-would-cost-irish-economy-18bn-euros-study

A 7% hit on GDP doesn't really tell us much about the impact though. Ireland's GDP is a pretty poor reflection of how well the country is actually doing, thanks largely to the distortion created by DFI.

ancapailldorcha

Serious discussion only please. Posts deleted.

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An in depth sector by sector analyse ,how quaint! Does anyone think Britain should consider doing one?



7% isn't too bad, obviously we want to avoid it but I thought it would be worse

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/21/hard-brexit-would-cost-irish-economy-18bn-euros-study

The problem is the X factor of UK policy which no one knows. Let's take cheese for example; if UK drops the requirements the market may be flooded with American cheese. This would hit the makers of "normal" cheese but hey may upscale it to the premium segment instead to offset it. Or UK could declare that cheese will now have limited import only and high tariffs in the triple digits to protect UK cheese production. It all comes down to how UK decides to fiddle with the rules and requirements and this is a great unknown which has far greater impact than the WTO trade tariffs as of today. I do think however that Irish companies will focus a lot more on selling to the continent going forward rather than UK which should have positive impacts on the longer term (larger market etc.).

CelticRambler

More cakeism:

UK wants open-ended Brexit transition period

The British government is seeking an open-ended transition period after Brexit, according to a Whitehall position paper ... The draft text for discussion shared with EU member states on Wednesday says: “The UK believes the period’s duration should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin the future relationship ... Rather than include a “punishment clause” in any agreement, through which the UK could be sanctioned for infringing the terms of the transition, the document says a joint committee should be established to ensure problems that arise are dealt with “in good faith”.

In good faith? :eek: Like they way they've re-interpreted their Phase 1 committments?

And a transition period as long as "it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems ..." Based on the current rate of preparation, that'd be what, about fifteen to twenty years? :pac:

demfad

CelticRambler wrote: »

More cakeism:

UK wants open-ended Brexit transition period


In good faith? :eek: Like they way they've re-interpreted their Phase 1 committments?

And a transition period as long as "it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems ..." Based on the current rate of preparation, that'd be what, about fifteen to twenty years? :pac:

What they need to ask for is an extension to A50. This solves all their short-medium term problems.
I seriously do not believe the UK side will be able to action the work involved for the transition. I also do not believe that they can pull off asking for an A50 extension without losing the support of the hard right Tory ERG
They would need Labour's support for the extension and 'they' (UK exec) would be divided on this.
The only thing that could change is an election. The ERG do not want to sabotage yet so far from the finish line.
The EU may need to (really really) insist on the clarity they are asking for now. Otherwise the UK will stagger towards March '19 and if nothing changes they will crash out.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Corbyn's another one who doesn't know what he wants. The difference is that he can just sit by the sidelines and criticise while doing absolutely nothing knowing that any mistakes from the Conservatives just bring him that bit closer to number 10.

That said, his mainly young base of fans and activists are in for a shock if they think he's going to stay in the single market/customs union.

He can afford to be silent on what he wants or to be unsure. He is not in power, there is no prospect of a election either for government or regarding the UK stopping Brexit. The stories about Corbyn being a spy should tell you why its better for him to keep quiet on Brexit. If newspapers will publish those type of stories and if sitting MPs are willing to state that he has betrayed his country or compare him to a traitor spy, imagine what they would do with his own words?

murphaph

Enzokk wrote: »

He can afford to be silent on what he wants or to be unsure. He is not in power, there is no prospect of a election either for government or regarding the UK stopping Brexit. The stories about Corbyn being a spy should tell you why its better for him to keep quiet on Brexit. If newspapers will publish those type of stories and if sitting MPs are willing to state that he has betrayed his country or compare him to a traitor spy, imagine what they would do with his own words?

HM Opposition ist there to challenge the government and provide a viable alternative government. Keeping schtum is a dereliction of duty at this late stage.

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

HM Opposition ist there to challenge the government and provide a viable alternative government. Keeping schtum is a dereliction of duty at this late stage.

Of course but keeping shtum means that the government can plough on with the vital business of running out the clock, making a mess of Brexit and ultimately costing themselves the next election leaving Jeremy Corbyn or his successor a clear path to number 10. That the government isn't taking this more seriously is farcical.

Econ_

Enzokk wrote: »

He can afford to be silent on what he wants or to be unsure. He is not in power, there is no prospect of a election either for government or regarding the UK stopping Brexit. The stories about Corbyn being a spy should tell you why its better for him to keep quiet on Brexit. If newspapers will publish those type of stories and if sitting MPs are willing to state that he has betrayed his country or compare him to a traitor spy, imagine what they would do with his own words?

There absolutely is the prospect of a general election.

Either

a) the DUP could bring the government down if they think there’s going to be a border in the Irish Sea

Or

b) Parliament votes against whatever deal May brings back


Both scenarios are extremely plausible. The chances of a general election in the next year are quite high imo.

Really Interested

Econ_ wrote: »

There absolutely is the prospect of a general election.

Either

a) the DUP could bring the government down if they think there’s going to be a border in the Irish Sea

Or

b) Parliament votes against whatever deal May brings back


Both scenarios are extremely plausible. The chances of a general election in the next year are quite high imo.

Would that not require 2/3 of parliament to happen.

Skedaddle

Really Interested wrote: »

Would that not require 2/3 of parliament to happen.

Not if there's a vote of no confidence and no alternative government can be found within parliament in a 14 day time period.

The 2/3 majority only applies where the PM askes to dissolve parliament early.

I think the Fixed Term Parliament Act was a solution in search of problem. The result has been it is adding to the perfect storm around Brexit.

If there is a vote of no confidence, instead of an orderly procedure to a general election, you would now have 14 days of pandemonium as Westminster tries to find a magic number to cobble together a new government.

Professor Moriarty

Econ_ wrote: »

There absolutely is the prospect of a general election.

Either

a) the DUP could bring the government down if they think there’s going to be a border in the Irish Sea

Or

b) Parliament votes against whatever deal May brings back


Both scenarios are extremely plausible. The chances of a general election in the next year are quite high imo.

Paddy Power will give you 11/4 on there being an election this year. Interestingly, Mogg is favourite to be next PM at 4/1 followed by Corbyn at 6/1.

murphaph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Paddy Power will give you 11/4 on there being an election this year. Interestingly, Mogg is favourite to be next PM at 4/1 followed by Corbyn at 6/1.

Has Mogg ever even been in the government?? That an outsider like that can be the bookie's favourite speaks volumes about how damaged UK politics are.

Havockk

murphaph wrote: »

Has Mogg ever even been in the government?? That an outsider like that can be the bookie's favourite speaks volumes about how damaged UK politics are.

As horrific as I truly believe that would be, there's a bit of me that really wants to see just how that would even work.

That makes me a horrible human being doesn't it?

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

HM Opposition ist there to challenge the government and provide a viable alternative government. Keeping schtum is a dereliction of duty at this late stage.

Agreed, but asking the party who has more MPs in favour of staying in the EU than the Conservatives (my estimate) and who campaigned to stay in the EU to give a detailed plan to leave the EU seems a little strange. I am not saying they are devoid of responsibility, but they have said they want as close as possible trade deal with the EU and have not set silly red lines like the PM has.

You could liken it to Labour all of a sudden having to implement or at least plan for the privatisation of the NHS because it is being run to fail right now. Their answer would be closer to fixing the NHS than trying to go down the Tory route. Seems to me that blaming Corbyn for Brexit or the failures of the current negotiations is distracting and just trying to shift the focus from where it needs to be, the current government.

Even if Corbyn campaigns strongly for the UK to stay in the single market and customs union when push comes to shove and a deal is reached where the UK will leave both and parliament has to vote on it, if the decision for those Tory MPs that want the UK to stop Brexit is to vote against it and force a new election where Labour would win or to stay in power and leave the EU, they will vote with the party. They have done this before and will do it again.

Econ_ wrote: »

There absolutely is the prospect of a general election.

Either

a) the DUP could bring the government down if they think there’s going to be a border in the Irish Sea

Or

b) Parliament votes against whatever deal May brings back


Both scenarios are extremely plausible. The chances of a general election in the next year are quite high imo.

And I am sure Labour is prepared to run an election campaign, but unless there is a challenge against Theresa May or the DUP gives up their strong position where their tail is wagging the dog it will not happen. Do we expect the DUP to tell the Tories to shove it when they are effectively running NI through a bribe to keep the Tories in power?

Others have pointed it out before but most MPs are too scared to be PM right now, at least the smart ones (did you see Boris Johnson after the result was known? His face was more like he was at a funeral instead of someone who backed the winning horse). Negotiating Brexit will only lead to pain for the sitting PM as its not a smart thing to do for a country. Why do you think Cameron jumped ship as soon as the result was known? I may not like him, but there is no denying he was intelligent enough to know when to run. This after he told the people he would not resign and that he would trigger article 50 the day after the result if the UK voted to leave.

I think there will be an election, but it would be convenient for all for it to happen after March 2019. The Conservatives will have a new leader and there should be some clarity on what can be done other than trying to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU.

Water John

One in seven of the pop of the US suffers a food borne illness each year. Factory hygiene is worsening. This is what the UK will get.

Salmonella and other foodborne illnesses
The US has shockingly high levels of foodborne illness, according to a new analysis by UK pressure group Sustain. It says that annually, around 14.7% (48 million people) of the US population is estimated to suffer from an illness, compared to around 1.5% (1 million) in the UK. In the US, 128,000 are hospitalised, and 3,000 die each year of foodborne diseases.

One bug, salmonella, causes around 1m illnesses per year in the US, while in the UK the numbers of officially recorded incidents is relatively low, with just under 10,000 laboratory confirmed cases in 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/dirty-meat-shocking-hygiene-failings-discovered-in-us-pig-and-chicken-plants

steddyeddy

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, not so much. I think everybody knows that he and Hoey are opposed on almost every point to do with Ireland, and always have been.

Well the public may know that's the case but as party leader he should be making an effort to distance himself and his party from her comments.

Capt'n Midnight

Grove at it again. Blaming the EU for the UK not rolling out rural broadband as fast as you'd like.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/21/brexit_will_mean_better_broadband_and_4g_coverage_for_farmers_says_michael_gove/

UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove has promised to use the cash we no longer have to give to the EU to subsidise rural connectivity
...
He also blamed the EU's rules on state aid having "prevented us from investing in broadband in a way that is best for the UK.

This is what Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK), part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has to say about European funding for broadband

BDUK acts as the Broadband Competence Office to provide assistance with European funding for broadband projects. This includes the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). These funds are administered by other government departments but BDUK can provide support to help.

Inquitus

murphaph wrote: »

Has Mogg ever even been in the government?? That an outsider like that can be the bookie's favourite speaks volumes about how damaged UK politics are.

Aye its truly amazing that despite the complete mess the UK is in at the moment, the favourite to be the next PM is one of the few guys who could make it worse!

J Mysterio

Somewhat rambling but nonetheless interesting critique of Unionism by former Vice Chairman of PSNI:

Dennis Bradley: How do you Solve a Problem like Unionism? (Irish Times)

Hurrache

The Financial Times reporting that Conservatives are expecting Unilever to consolidate their headquarters from England and over to Holland due to Brexit.

https://www.ft.com/content/cc7d001a-16e6-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Somewhat rambling but nonetheless interesting critique of Unionism by former Vice Chairman of PSNI:

Dennis Bradley: How do you Solve a Problem like Unionism? (Irish Times)

Dunlop's observation was spot on.

Mezcita

Havockk wrote: »

As horrific as I truly believe that would be, there's a bit of me that really wants to see just how that would even work.

That makes me a horrible human being doesn't it?

That makes two of us and I live over here.

Fed up with the lot of it. The continued rubbish being spoon fed to the British population who happily don't appear to even want to question how this is panning out. The ambivalence of those who don't give a toss about the Good Friday Agreement being put under pressure by Brexit. Let alone those who have a clue about the dangers of a hard border in the north. The total lack of political opposition to Brexit. The perfect storm like conditions continue as the months tick by.

Screw it. Hard Brexit with Mogg in charge. You couldn't actually make it up. I genuinely believe that it's the only way that this might lead to political change in the UK. I've never lived anywhere before where people are happy to behave like lemmings about something which will affect generations of their own families.

Ho hum. Time to refresh the old CV and jump ship.

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunlop's observation was spot on.

I have to say that one struck me too. I admit when I see such an elegant description I can not help but have a grudging respect for the fight Unionism has put up to date. However, it's now time for tea lads.

Econ_

Laura Kuenssberg, BBC:

"One minister told me this week the consequences of leaving the EU after the implementation period without some form of customs arrangement will be graphically spelt out to Brexiteers tomorrow."



Interesting..

Professor Moriarty

Econ_ wrote: »

Laura Kuenssberg, BBC:

"One minister told me this week the consequences of leaving the EU after the implementation period without some form of customs arrangement will be graphically spelt out to Brexiteers tomorrow."



Interesting..

The problem is that they don't care. Got to get Johnny Foreigner out at any cost. Plus none of them will ever see a poor day no matter what happens.

judeboy101

Inquitus wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Has Mogg ever even been in the government?? That an outsider like that can be the bookie's favourite speaks volumes about how damaged UK politics are.

Aye its truly amazing that despite the complete mess the UK is in at the moment, the favourite to be the next PM is one of the few guys who could make it worse!

He's precluded from being pm due to his catholic religion. The pm by law advises the queen over who to promote in the Anglican church and uk law prohibits jews and Catholics from doing that job. That's why blair had to wait til he left to declare himself RC.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The problem is that they don't care. Got to get Johnny Foreigner out at any cost. Plus none of them will ever see a poor day no matter what happens.

Brexiteers usually respond with anger and defiance when they hear bad news.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Brexiteers usually respond with anger and defiance when they hear bad news.

Lots of deluded gnashing of teeth by the Cakeists so.

Econ_

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The problem is that they don't care. Got to get Johnny Foreigner out at any cost. Plus none of them will ever see a poor day no matter what happens.

Strazdas wrote: »

Brexiteers usually respond with anger and defiance when they hear bad news.

You don't give these Brexiteers enough credit. They are not lofty half-wits.

They don't respond with anger and defiance; they respond in a cunning, devious and highly orchestrated manner.

Junkyard Tom

Havockk wrote: »

However, it's now time for tea lads.

They must have the worst strategists advising them - they're backing themselves into a corner.

The north's place under UK/English patronage will depend on how happy non-unionists are with their lot and Unionists have done little but sneer at, and mock, all sorts of groups from Irish speakers to gay people.

The only long-term strategy that I can think of that Unionists are planning for is to make the north such a basket-case dependency of England's that the people there would be afraid to vote for a UI and the southern voters would be afraid to take it on.

There's one problem with that chaos strategy though, the English. The English would eventually start asking why they're paying many billions every year to prop up somewhere they couldn't give a **** about while they have problems keeping the real countries in Britain in the union.