Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)
Comments
-
Whatever you feel about Tusk's intervention, to describe Varadkar as "sniggering and gloating" I suggest says far more about you than about him: at the highest, an unexpected statement was made by a colleague at a conference and he merely acted with the necessary decorum.
What could he gloat about - yet another British ill thought it and uncaring intervention in Ireland which massively damages the social, political and economic environment simply to serve British arrogance and narcissism? Why would that give cause to gloat?
The EU response to the UK has so far been polite and firm.May's assertion that she can renegotiate the backstop had been rebuffed but the EU quite rightly retained the moral high ground.
So what is the objective of the EU?-Is it to hope to persuade the UK that the current path is wrong and to reconsider the error of it's ways?-Or to crush and belittle,giving oxygen to the brexiteers who say the EU is trying to bully the UK?.Your assertion that my comment says more about me is baffling-I think the EU has conducted themselves well and I hope the UK comes to the realisation brexit is a bad idea-look at the interaction between Tusk and Varadkar-imo it's not helpful to the remainers cause.0 -
Yes although I would be willing to open the WA to ensure that such an article 50 clause must be included in any future relationship.
But it should be mutual of course - if the UK gets such a break clause, the EU must also.0 -
They wont be rallying much of anything to be honest unless they want to continue deluding themselves. There's a point in time when the niceties simply have to be dropped and people told EXACTLY what their level of bullshít is causing. The British Government have been at this for 2 years and now it's time for them to choose and own the problem they themselves created. Instead we get the likes of Sammy Shítstirrer treating his own voters with contempt when asked real and valid questions about food supplies and concerns by retailers saying "Send them to the Chippy". May going on endlessly with statements that have long since been proven as unworkable and ignore facts.
It should also serve as a warning to them that if they intentonally crash and cause damage to everyone that bar humanitarian issues and concerns (were not that cold) that Britain will not get anything more favourable and possibly even less favourable after a crash than before it. There's consequences for malicious and intentional damage to others.
Is the objective of the EU to steer the UK in the direction of realising the error of it's ways or to crush and belittle it?
The brexiteers are seizing on the footage of Tusk and Varadkar sniggering about the "hell"comments-as a remainer I don't think it's helpful giving them anything to latch on to.0 -
Just reading another thing on the BBC that Theresa May says the UK will not allow itself to be "trapped in the backstop". What would be acceptable to me would be a further article 50 type clause to be included in the final treaty - triggerable by either side- to end the relationship.
That simply mimics the existing framework and allows the UK to face the same choices it currently does but at a future date.
How is that a deal? Let's agree not to punch each other in the face but also that either of us can punch the other in the face and no-one is allowed to complain. It's ridiculous.0 -
Is the objective of the EU to steer the UK in the direction of realising the error of it's ways or to crush and belittle it?
The brexiteers are seizing on the footage of Tusk and Varadkar sniggering about the "hell"comments-as a remainer I don't think it's helpful giving them anything to latch on to.
The EU quite rightly has to protect itself and it's pillars. They've tried two years of diplomacy, yet I see you don't really give them credit for any of that considering the attacks launched on them from the UK side.
Let's remind ourselves there is 7 weeks left. Diplomacy has failed . This is now reality time. And the reasons for the comments was to quite rightly put he light on the brexiteer management. And that has been achieved0 -
Advertisement
-
Folkstonian wrote: »The backstop negotiated by Theresa May allows the European Union to contain Britain in an uncomfortable state of limbo in perpetuity until the British government agrees on a future trade agreement that gives Europe absolutely everything it desires.
As with the agreement on sequencing for the withdrawal agreement, it would wipe out any negotiating power that Britain has. The French would have to be given fishing rights, the Spanish would have to be given joint sovereignty over Gibraltar, the Germans would demand Britain adhered to European regulation on financial services etc.
I can absolutely see why the limbo status of the backstop as agreed to by May has been met with such concern in parliament.
Im sure everyone in the commons understands the importance of a frictionless border for Irish society but there must be genuine worries that Europe will use it as to extract every little concession they could in the future relationship talks
I’m not blaming Europe of course, they strove for the best deal they could get and probably couldn’t believe how much May was willing to give up without a fight.0 -
There already is a break clause, the UK can step away at any time. But there would be consequences and it wouldn't remove their responsibilities.
Just like A50. The issue is not that the UK is being stopped from leaving, the issue is that the UK thinks they should be allowed to leave without any recourse to agreements and responsibilities.
Are you suddenly expecting that to change during the WA phase? Because the next likely leader of Tories is Boris or Davis or Raab etc each of which has used their responsibilities and obligations as threats during A50.0 -
listermint wrote: »The EU quite rightly has to protect itself and it's pillars. They've tried two years of diplomacy, yet I see you don't really give them credit for any of that considering the attacks launched on them from the UK side.
Let's remind ourselves there is 7 weeks left. Diplomacy has failed . This is now reality time. And the reasons for the comments was to quite rightly put he light on the brexiteer management. And that has been achieved
I'm not referring to the "hell"comment-that was the truth-the brexiteers have created a bad situation by their irresponsible actions.
The point I was trying to make was Taoiseach Varadkar sniggering and gloating with Tusk is unhelpful to the cause of the remainers and is being held up by the brexiteers as an example of the EUs real objective which is bullying the UK.
Up to that point I thought the EU had played a blinder.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Quick question. If NI had ended up having special status as both UK and EU, would Belfast have taken a lot of London's financial services and jobs?
If so, the DUP scored a serious own goal. UI would never happen if Belfast had that.
Yep they absolutely would have taken some and it would have been a huge boost to their economy in the long run to be the go between for the UK and the EU.
Their dogmatic shortsightedness of not being seperate in anyway for fear of bringing a UI closer will ironically just make a UI closer.0 -
Is the objective of the EU to steer the UK in the direction of realising the error of it's ways or to crush and belittle it?
The brexiteers are seizing on the footage of Tusk and Varadkar sniggering about the "hell"comments-as a remainer I don't think it's helpful giving them anything to latch on to.
Tusk and Varadkar are doing the job the Remainers should be doing - ridiculing the irresponsible, directionless attitude of Brexiteers.
The 'Brexiteers' have been latching on to mistruths since this began. They are now hearing the truth because the EU have nothing to lose anymore. The negotiations are over - that was the profundity of yesterday. Remainers should be underscoring and underlining that instead of getting pointlessly upset.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »
All great points as always Peregrinus and I'm happy to take on board the disparity between types of Brexiters might be helpful to form an understanding of the drivers.
I do maintain though that Britain as an active foreign policy actor will struggle to fit into EFTA member neutral stance, likely causing issues every time US and EU foreign policy misaligns and Britain might want to follow the US view.
Say new developments around Iran could cause a rift, where US might want to introduce sanctions against Iran. UK might be convinced to follow suit, but EU disagrees. Iranian imports in the common EFTA market are suddenly a major issue with the UK in it. Current EFTA members much more likely to just remain neutral.
I understand you view that an absence of an active foreign policy IS a policy, but EFTA might be compatible with this, but not an active one.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »How is that a deal? Let's agree not to punch each other in the face but also that either of us can punch the other in the face and no-one is allowed to complain. It's ridiculous.0
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »Tusk and Varadkar are doing the job the Remainers should be doing - ridiculing the irresponsible, directionless attitude of Brexiteers.
The 'Brexiteers' have been latching on to mistruths since this began. They are now hearing the truth because the EU have nothing to lose anymore. The negotiations are over - that was the profundity of yesterday. Remainers should be underscoring and underlining that instead of getting pointlessly upset.
It's not a case of getting upset-I ask again-is the objective of the EU to help steer the UK in the right direction or crush and belittle giving the likes of sammy boy ammo?0 -
-
It's not a case of getting upset-I ask again-is the objective of the EU to help steer the UK in the right direction or crush and belittle giving the likes of sammy boy ammo?
The UK is a former empire, a veto holding member of the UN, a leading member of NATO, has a centuries old political system etc etc.
If it is in need of being chaperoned to safety then a few comments about a few of it's citizens going to hell is the least of it's worries. The UK is on a zimmerframe, if that is the case and looking at going on life support.
Remainers are as usual responding to this in the wrong way. They have no idea how to seize the day.0 -
The EU response to the UK has so far been polite and firm.May's assertion that she can renegotiate the backstop had been rebuffed but the EU quite rightly retained the moral high ground.
So what is the objective of the EU?-Is it to hope to persuade the UK that the current path is wrong and to reconsider the error of it's ways?-Or to crush and belittle,giving oxygen to the brexiteers who say the EU is trying to bully the UK? Your assertion that my comment says more about me is baffling-I think the EU has conducted themselves well and I hope the UK comes to the realisation brexit is a bad idea-look at the interaction between Tusk and Varadkar-imo it's not helpful to the remainers cause.
1. May (on behalf of HMG) negotiates a deal with Barnier (on behalf of the Council). Each side understands that the other side has to go back to their respective parliaments to get the deal ratified. This is normal in international treaty-making.
2. There’s always a risk that one or other parliament won’t ratify the deal. This is understood. But it is expected that the negotiators on each side (a) by signing the deal, are indicating that they expect their parliament to ratify it, and (b) will recommend it to their parliament for ratification.
3. In the event, the Commons didn’t ratify the deal. But, much worse, May didn’t recommend it for ratification; she voted against ratifying it herself, and she whipped her party to vote against ratifying it. That’s (a) completely unexpected; (b) very shocking and (c) hugely destabilising to the process. Everything that has happened since has to be seen in the light of that.
4. The Commons (at May’s urging) passed a motion rejecting a key aspect of the negotiated deal and calling for it be replaced by something else, but (a) didn’t say what the “something else” should be, and (b) didn’t even set out any indicators or parameters or boundaries as to what kind of something else might be acceptable to them. This is a deeply, and almost deliberately , unhelpful stance to take so late in the negotiations. It is not calculated to maintain either trust or goodwill.
5. The most charitable explanation for this is that Parliament didn’t indicate what kind of something else it might accept because it couldn’t; there is (still) no agreement among Brexiters on the kind of Brexit that is acceptable.
6. This is clearly not a situation in which the EU is going to start offering further concessions; nor would any reasonable person expect them to. Clearly, the Brexiters are not yet ready to deal with the EU. Any further concessions offered at this point would simply be trousered by the UK, and then regarded as the baseline from which to formulate their request for some further concession as an “alternative arrangement”.
7. So the EU officials did the only thing they could to in this situation - indicate firmly that they have negotiated a deal, they stand over the deal, they see no need to depart from the deal, and if the UK wants to propose an alternative to the deal it needs to, well, actually propose an alternative to the deal.
8. For this purpose May assembled the “Alternative Arrnagements Working Group”, made up of Brexiter Tory MPs tasked with formulating an alternative arrangement that can be put to the EU, and offered civil service support/resources to do so.
9. Right. Yesterday, with depressing predictability, the Alternative Arrangements Working Group started to fall apart. A trip to Northern Ireland was arranged for the members of the AAWG to meet local businesses and politicians, and to be briefed by intelligence and security officials on the border issue. Ultra-Brexiteer members of the group decided that this was a sinister trap; the secret agenda was to expose them to the views of people who would be harmed by a no-deal Brexit and who would be opposed to it, which was obviously a deplorable attempt to skew their deliberations by requiring them to contemplate reality at least once. This was a stitch-up. Half the group refused to go, and the trip was called off. That half is now lining up with other ERG members who are briefing that that no changes to the backstop will be sufficient to secure ratification of the deal. The other half will not adopt this stance, which they see as politically suicidal, and they are breifing that if the ultras don’t come back to Earth the AAWG will split.
Right. That’s the context within which Tusk makes his remarks. His remarks are pretty pungent, right enough, but its notable that, among all those who profess to be outraged, insulted, horrified, etc at what he has said, virtually nobody has said that his basic premise is wrong. Nobody is saying “we had a clear, deliverable plan for Brexit; we know what we want”. Tusk’s remarks hurt not because they are false but because they are true.
OK, but, still, when you have the choice between speaking the truth and not speaking, sometimes the wise course is not to speak. So what was Tusk’s objective in speaking this particular truth at this particular moment?
The first object, I think, is to highlight it. The UK’s approach to Brexit is being crippled by the fact that Brexiters still don’t know what they want. The Brexiters themselves know this to be true. Tusk’s intervention makes it very clear that the EU understands this, and will take advantage of this state of affairs for so long as it prevails. It maximises the incentive for the Brexiters to stop fighting among themselves and start agreeing. Any agreed Brexit position, no matter how stupid and unrealistic, would be more conducive to progress than the current shambles in London.
And the second object is to provide support to the Commission and its officials. Barnier, Selmayr, Weyand, etc are Commission officials, and a common Brexiter line has been to dismiss what they say as the thoughts of unelected bureaucrats. But Tusk is the President of the Council, elected to that position by the EU governments (including the UK government, which voted for him). He is trying to strangle at birth, in a public and unmistakeable fashion, any half-formed notion that the Council of Minister will yet save the Brexiter, override the Commission and cave to the UK to avoid a no-deal. Tusk wouldn’t be taking this line if he wasn’t completely confident that the Council would support it (if not perhaps in quite such direct terms).
What Tusk is pointing to here is the fact that Brexiters still don’t have a realistic, practical, deliverable plan for Brexit that they themselves support. Put the other way, he is signalling that the way forward for them - the only way forward - is to come up with such a plan and agree among themselves to support it.
(You’re right to say that it’s not helpful to the Remainers’ cause. It’s not intended to be. The EU is not expecting or pushing for a “remain” solution.)0 -
Francie,that maybe the opinion of a fair number of posters on this forum....but I don't think thats the EU line-at least not officially anyway.0
-
The point I was trying to make was Taoiseach Varadkar sniggering and gloating with Tusk is unhelpful to the cause of the remainers and is being held up by the brexiteers as an example of the EUs real objective which is bullying the UK.
Up to that point I thought the EU had played a blinder.
Again, why do you say Varadkar was "sniggering" or "gloating" - do you believe that is an honest interpretation of his actions?0 -
All great points as always Peregrinus and I'm happy to take on board the disparity between types of Brexiters might be helpful to form an understanding of the drivers.
I do maintain though that Britain as an active foreign policy actor will struggle to fit into EFTA member neutral stance, likely causing issues every time US and EU foreign policy misaligns and Britain might want to follow the US view.
Say new developments around Iran could cause a rift, where US might want to introduce sanctions against Iran. UK might be convinced to follow suit, but EU disagrees. Iranian imports in the common EFTA market are suddenly a major issue with the UK in it. Current EFTA members much more likely to just remain neutral.
I understand you view that an absence of an active foreign policy IS a policy, but EFTA might be compatible with this, but not an active one.0 -
It's not a case of getting upset-I ask again-is the objective of the EU to help steer the UK in the right direction or crush and belittle giving the likes of sammy boy ammo?
The EU cannot steer the UK as that is the job of parliament. This has been the forum where the lack of realistic debate has fueled the notions of removing backstops and where reopening the WA is still currency.
This is due in no small part to Mays tactics and red lines but also to the lack of an opposition or co-ordinated opposing views.
What Tusk said yesterday should be said a hundred times a week in the commons by Labour but Corbyn is a Brexiteer at heart and paralysed by how many of his MPs represent leave constituencies therefore there have been no checks to the misinformation from the ERG/DUP faction.
Tusks motivation was to present the unvarnished truth that the negotiations are now over and that a no deal is because the Brexiteers don’t have a plan to avoid one and never did.
When May comes back to the commons there can be no doubt that it’s her deal or no deal.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Well, put Tusk’s intervention in context:
1. May (on behalf of HMG) negotiates a deal with Barnier (on behalf of the Council). Each side understands that the other side has to go back to their respective parliaments to get the deal ratified. This is normal in international treaty-making.
2. There’s always a risk that one or other parliament won’t ratify the deal. This is understood. But it is expected that the negotiators on each side (a) by signing the deal, are indicating that they expect their parliament to ratify it, and (b) will recommend it to their parliament for ratification.
3. In the event, the Commons didn’t ratify the deal. But, much worse, May didn’t recommend it for ratification; she voted against ratifying it herself, and she whipped her party to vote against ratifying it. That’s (a) completely unexpected; (b) very shocking and (c) hugely destabilising to the process. Everything that has happened since has to be seen in the light of that.
4. The Commons (at May’s urging) passed a motion rejecting a key aspect of the negotiated deal and calling for it be replaced by something else, but (a) didn’t say what the “something else” should be, and (b) didn’t even set out any indicators or parameters or boundaries as to what kind of something else might be acceptable to them. This is a deeply, and almost deliberately , unhelpful stance to take so late in the negotiations. It is not calculated to maintain either trust or goodwill.
5. The most charitable explanation for this is that Parliament didn’t indicate what kind of something else it might accept because it couldn’t; there is (still) no agreement among Brexiters on the kind of Brexit that is acceptable.
6. This is clearly not a situation in which the EU is going to start offering further concessions; nor would any reasonable person expect them to. Clearly, the Brexiters are not yet ready to deal with the EU. Any further concessions offered at this point would simply be trousered by the UK, and then regarded as the baseline from which to formulate their request for some further concession as an “alternative arrangement”.
7. So the EU officials did the only thing they could to in this situation - indicate firmly that they have negotiated a deal, they stand over the deal, they see no need to depart from the deal, and if the UK wants to propose an alternative to the deal it needs to, well, actually propose an alternative to the deal.
8. For this purpose May assembled the “Alternative Arrnagements Working Group”, made up of Brexiter Tory MPs tasked with formulating an alternative arrangement that can be put to the EU, and offered civil service support/resources to do so.
9. Right. Yesterday, with depressing predictability, the Alternative Arrangements Working Group started to fall apart. A trip to Northern Ireland was arranged for the members of the AAWG to meet local businesses and politicians, and to be briefed by intelligence and security officials on the border issue. Ultra-Brexiteer members of the group decided that this was a sinister trap; the secret agenda was to expose them to the views of people who would be harmed by a no-deal Brexit and who would be opposed to it, which was obviously a deplorable attempt to skew their deliberations by requiring them to contemplate reality at least once. This was a stitch-up. Half the group refused to go, and the trip was called off. That half is now lining up with other ERG members who are briefing that that no changes to the backstop will be sufficient to secure ratification of the deal. The other half will not adopt this stance, which they see as politically suicidal, and they are breifing that if the ultras don’t come back to Earth the AAWG will split.
Right. That’s the context within which Tusk makes his remarks. His remarks are pretty pungent, right enough, but its notable that, among all those who profess to be outraged, insulted, horrified, etc at what he has said, virtually nobody has said that his basic premise is wrong. Nobody is saying “we had a clear, deliverable plan for Brexit; we know what we want”. Tusk’s remarks hurt not because they are false but because they are true.
OK, but, still, when you have the choice between speaking the truth and not speaking, sometimes the wise course is not to speak. So what was Tusk’s objective in speaking this particular truth at this particular moment?
The first object, I think, is to highlight it. The UK’s approach to Brexit is being crippled by the fact that Brexiters still don’t know what they want. The Brexiters themselves know this to be true. Tusk’s intervention makes it very clear that the EU understands this, and will take advantage of this state of affairs for so long as it prevails. It maximises the incentive for the Brexiters to stop fighting among themselves and start agreeing. Any agreed Brexit position, no matter how stupid and unrealistic, would be more conducive to progress than the current shambles in London.
And the second object is to provide support to the Commission and its officials. Barnier, Selmayr, Weyand, etc are Commission officials, and a common Brexiter line has been to dismiss what they say as the thoughts of unelected bureaucrats. But Tusk is the President of the Council, elected to that position by the EU governments (including the UK government, which voted for him). He is trying to strangle at birth, in a public and unmistakeable fashion, any half-formed notion that the Council of Minister will yet save the Brexiter, override the Commission and cave to the UK to avoid a no-deal. Tusk wouldn’t be taking this line if he wasn’t completely confident that the Council would support it (if not perhaps in quite such direct terms).
What Tusk is pointing to here is the fact that Brexiters still don’t have a realistic, practical, deliverable plan for Brexit that they themselves support. Put the other way, he is signalling that the way forward for them - the only way forward - is to come up with such a plan and agree among themselves to support it.
(You’re right to say that it’s not helpful to the Remainers’ cause. It’s not intended to be. The EU is not expecting or pushing for a “remain” solution.)
As I said,up until that point (Taoiseach Varadkar and Tusk sniggering about the comment)I thought the EU response to May and co. was faultless,that incident took the shine off things-I disagree with you slightly in that i thought the EU appears to want the UK to remain-officially anyway.0 -
I'm sorry but remain is off the table: you have May or her replacements or Corbyn. None will allow you to remain. Your hope needs to die before you can move on.
Again, why do you say Varadkar was "sniggering" or "gloating" - do you believe that is an honest interpretation of his actions?
Sorry-have I missed something?-can't the UK revoke article 50 unilaterally anymore?0 -
Sorry-have I missed something?-can't the UK revoke article 50 unilaterally anymore?
Of course they can, but Tusk has pointed out quite rightly with both May and Corbyn lining up as anti-remain its highly unlikely it will happen. May won't do it as its political suicide for her and will split the tory party and Corbyn won't do it because ultimately he wants to leave, possibly under no deal so Labour can win the next election.
As has been said numerous times before both are putting party and personal agendas before the long term well being of the country0 -
-
I disagree with you slightly in that i thought the EU appears to want the UK to remain-officially anyway.
Unofficially I expect many politicians kind of hope that Brexit happens and we get it over with. If the UK withdraw A50, there's some respite from economic armageddon, but the farce won't be over. The Leaver rhetoric will just get worse, the demands from the UK ever more ridiculous and exceptional.0 -
RobMc59 wrote:It's not a case of getting upset-I ask again-is the objective of the EU to help steer the UK in the right direction or crush and belittle giving the likes of sammy boy ammo?
I've referred previously to the bereavement curve as a predictor for the UK's behaviour. They are moving along it and the EU is (quite rightly) helping them do so.0 -
Just in reference to a Norway/Norway+ model, isn't part of that model a free travel arrangement between Norway & the EU, so open borders?
If so, that basically renders it a moot conversation. For all the bluster around sovereignty, ECJ etc... the reality is that this is the ultimate reason behind Brexit for the vast majority from all I've heard & read in the last couple of years.
Whether you're a working class northener claiming that cheap EU labour stole all your jobs, or a rich scumbag Farage-type who doesn't like the idea of people speaking a foreign language close to him while he commutes to work, it's all about those bloody foreigners0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Quick question. If NI had ended up having special status as both UK and EU, would Belfast have taken a lot of London's financial services and jobs?
If so, the DUP scored a serious own goal. UI would never happen if Belfast had that.
Bearing in mind that the place is reliant on Westminster handouts, the special status proposal as reported could have been a once in a lifetime opportunity to diversify and improve the economy there - Belfast could have been a hub for business currently based in other parts of the UK who would like to maintain a base that allowed them access to the EU without the need for wholesale upheaval (moving to other parts of Europe post Brexit).
Because they way things are progressing, the handouts will be in very short supply post Brexit.
There was an opportunity - for once - to do something that could have potentially improved the lives of all in NI - and they blew it0 -
As I said,up until that point (Taoiseach Varadkar and Tusk sniggering about the comment)I thought the EU response to May and co. was faultless,that incident took the shine off things . . .-I disagree with you slightly in that i thought the EU appears to want the UK to remain-officially anyway.
EU (as an institution) has never taken the position that UK should change its mind (and in fact argued before the ECJ that it did not have the right to).
Tusk as an individual is famously Anglophile and almost certainly did hope that the UK would change his mind, though in his official capacity he could never say so. I think if there are bitter overtones in his more recent statements it's because it pains him to accept that this is not going to happen, but he can no longer deny it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Perhaps if the likes of the remainer MP's, the media interviewers etc had treated Brexiteers in the same fashion that Tusk did yesterday we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.
Even yesterday Davis was on Preston stating, without a shred of evidence that the EU always give in at the last minute. Of course Preston didn't even bother to ask that if that were true why were the UK looking to leave a group that is so easily manipulated and always gives in?
We had JRM yesterday on LBC stating that any reasonable person is worried about No Deal, after months of telling everyone that No Deal is nothing to worry about. Does the interviewer even ask him? No, they have a great laugh about things.
Laura K on BBC is more interested in the gossip, look how great TM did in completely lying to all and sundry for years.
This lack of a plan should have been exposed long before the ref, but certainly way before the vote to trigger A50. Every member of parliament should now be asked why they voted for A50 without having any idea of a plan.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement