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
-
If the UK withdraws article 50 after the EU elections it will absolutely piss off the EU as they will have wasted not just the article 50 two years but also the elections that would have cost money.
Could they just not re-balance the number of MEP's by keeping those elected and increasing the number to include the UK again in the proper ratio, then host European elections in the UK at the soonest opportunity to fill those newly created UK seats, or is it illegal to not have all member state elections take place on the same date?0 -
Could they just not re-balance the number of MEP's by keeping those elected and increasing the number to include the UK again in the proper ratio, then host European elections in the UK at the soonest opportunity to fill those newly created UK seats, or is it illegal to not have all member state elections take place on the same date?
That would probably require at least an additional 100 MEPs over what the EU currently has. All countries will be located extra MEP seats that used to belong to the UK so it would take a large addition of MEPs to keep the correct ratio.0 -
Does that mean that fresh EU elections would have to take place if the UK revoked A50 in that sceanro?
Yes, at least in the countries that will be affected by the change in MEP numbers as they would have more MEPs than they are allocated and the UK will need to have elections as well. There can only be 750 MEPs so with the UK losing their 72 but it is only replaced by 23(?) so the total after this years elections of MEPs will be 705. You could always give the UK the 45 you are allowed to get to 750 but then they would not have a fair representation in the EU Parliament.0 -
That would probably require at least an additional 100 MEPs over what the EU currently has. All countries will be located extra MEP seats that used to belong to the UK so it would take a large addition of MEPs to keep the correct ratio.
It was mentioned above that the UK's 73 will be chopped to 27 and re-distributed post Brexit, so lets assume they need 75 or so back after that adjustment, it would only be a net increase of 29 or so, which isn't as significant as the 100 you mention, it seems doable if there is no legal impediment.0 -
Could they just not re-balance the number of MEP's by keeping those elected and increasing the number to include the UK again in the proper ratio, then host European elections in the UK at the soonest opportunity to fill those newly created UK seats, or is it illegal to not have all member state elections take place on the same date?
This has sort of been answered but the Lisbon Treaty limited the number of MEPs to a maximum of 750, because every time a new member joined they kept adding MEP's to the parliament.
Here is an article about the size of the EU Parliament for 2019 after Brexit.
Size of Parliament to shrink after Brexit
Edit: Here is a link on the Lisbon treaty and the changes it brought to the EU Parliament.
Treaty of LisbonThe number of MEPs will be limited to 750, in addition to the President of the Parliament. Additionally, the Treaty of Lisbon will reduce the maximum number of MEPs from a member state from 99 to 96 (affects Germany) and increases the minimal number from 5 to 6 (affects Malta).0 -
Advertisement
-
Dont see what the point in delaying what looks like the inevitable. An extension should only be granted if there was a firm commitment on a second referendum and that would need to happen in a timely manner but i dont see that happening. If May cant get a deal through by March 29 which i dont see happening either whats the point in delaying any longer.0
-
So you know how we have had two different Home Secretaries since Theresa May and how Sajid Javid said he wanted to be more compassionate and fairer following his appointment? Let's see how that is going,
Home Office criticised for accelerating removals to ZimbabweThe Home Office has been condemned for working with the Zimbabwean government to accelerate the deportation of asylum seekers despite high-profile human rights abuses in the country.
Asylum lawyers and charities told the Guardian that since Robert Mugabe was forced from power in November 2017, the Home Office has started to push ahead with a removals process for refused asylum seekers, many of whom have been in the UK for over a decade.
Despite international condemnation of the actions of the police and army under the new president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, two asylum seekers were detained at the Home Office’s Vulcan House building on Monday. It is thought that the government is preparing to deport them within days.
I would begin to worry if I was an EU citizen in the UK as it seems the hostile environment is still very much in place and they are still working hard at getting people to leave the UK. That is why I think May will happily settle for no deal when the cliff edge is upon us. It will keep her party together as the Remainer Tories only number about 10 vs the 70 or so ERG members and that way she gets to do what she always wanted to since becoming Home Secretary, to get immigration down to below 100 000 to the UK.0 -
What is the last point tm can publicly announce she is going for an extension and still have time to achieve it?prawnsambo wrote: »It has to get unainmous approval from all EU27. A special council would probably have to be called, although I seem to remember that there is one planned for late March.
There's a European Council scheduled for 21/22 March. Realistically, that wuold be her last chance.
There'a a further complication, in that Westminster has already passed legislation providing for EU law to cease to apply in the UK with effect from 11 p.m. on 29 March. Hypothetically, if the UK sought and was granted an extension, but left this law in place, from 29 March they would be members of the EU but in massive breach of their obligation to implement EU law, leading to huge political, practical and legal problems - many of them the same as would happen on a no-deal Brexit.
That wouldn't be the plan, of course. The same Act which says that EU law is to cease to apply from 29 March also says that the 29 March date can be changed to another date by a ministerial order, if the UK's departure from the EU is delayed. So obviously the minister would make the necessary order.
The thing is, orders of this kind have to be laid before Parliament. That's pretty routine, but Parliament does have - and occasionally exercises - the right to pass a resolution to "set aside" a ministerial order within 21 days after it is laid before them. No doubt ultra-Brexiters would attempt to get such a motion passed, to frustrate government's attempt to extend A50 period. I wold expect the attempt to fail, but who really knows?0 -
This does depend on the Irish government making the necessary ECMT agreement with the UK. The prospect of that are probably good, but Ireland could hold out for a wider agreement - all UK operators to be allowed to operate in Ireland, in return for Irish operators being allowed to operate throughout the UK. We'll see.If you’re a Northern Ireland vehicle operator
If you have an operator licence from the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, the UK government expects you will not need an ECMT permit to drive to or through Ireland.
The UK government will seek an agreement with Ireland to allow continued access for Northern Ireland hauliers to Ireland without the need for ECMT permits.
The UK government has stated it will not require Irish hauliers to have ECMT permits to operate in Northern Ireland.
It now looks like the UK we bring extra generous to give us sixty when most of our lorries won’t need any.
Neither deal would solve a second problem that NI hauliers face, which is that even if they are free to operate within the Republic, they won't be free to operate through the Republic to other EU countries, which is a significant part of their business.
The DUP had nothing to do with it.I’m no fan of the dup but well done if you had anything to do with agreeing that one.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
And to add to the complications, it appears that there's a legal Russian doll hanging over the whole mess.Peregrinus wrote: »There's a European Council scheduled for 21/22 March. Realistically, that wuold be her last chance.
There'a a further complication, in that Westminster has already passed legislation providing for EU law to cease to apply in the UK with effect from 11 p.m. on 29 March. Hypothetically, if the UK sought and was granted an extension, but left this law in place, from 29 March they would be members of the EU but in massive breach of their obligation to implement EU law, leading to huge political, practical and legal problems - many of them the same as would happen on a no-deal Brexit.
That wouldn't be the plan, of course. The same Act which says that EU law is to cease to apply from 29 March also says that the 29 March date can be changed to another date by a ministerial order, if the UK's departure from the EU is delayed. So obviously the minister would make the necessary order.
The thing is, orders of this kind have to be laid before Parliament. That's pretty routine, but Parliament does have - and occasionally exercises - the right to pass a resolution to "set aside" a ministerial order within 21 days after it is laid before them. No doubt ultra-Brexiters would attempt to get such a motion passed, to frustrate government's attempt to extend A50 period. I wold expect the attempt to fail, but who really knows?
The law that says any new treaty has to be laid before the HoC 21 days before it's voted on will have to be changed.
But of course that change will also have to be voted on, and there are only 26 sitting days left before B-Day.0 -
Different issue from requesting an extension, though. Requesting an extension isn't making a new treaty, so doesn't have to be laid before Parliament for 21 days before being acted upon.prawnsambo wrote: »And to add to the complications, it appears that there's a legal Russian doll hanging over the whole mess.
The law that says any new treaty has to be laid before the HoC 21 days before it's voted on will have to be changed.
But of course that change will also have to be voted on, and there are only 26 sitting days left before B-Day.
If May wants to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement then, yeah, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act says that she needs to lay it before Parliament 21 sitting days before she ratifies it.
Bur, of course, the agreed text of the Withdrawal Agreement was laid before Parliament last November, so if what May decides to ratify is the WA, as negotiated, without amendment, she has already complied with the laying-before-parliament condition. And, as the EU has said that it will not reopen the text of the withdrawal agreement, any tweak or compromise or assurance or whatever she gets out of them is unlikely to involve any change to the text that was laid before Parliament last November.
If May does succeed in getting the text of the WA changed then, yeah, she has to lay that before Parliament 21 sitting days before she can ratify it, or she has to get Parliament to vary or disapply that requirement. But of course ratifying the WA already needs legislative action in the UK - namely, the passage by Parliament of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. So this doesn't really add anything new; May needs parliamentary approval for and co-operation with the ratification of the WA, in the form of Parliament enacting the needed legislation. But that has been known all along.0 -
And if she gets the text changed, that has to go back to the EuCO. So that's not a great option either. The problem with bringing an unchanged bill back to parliament is that you may well get an unchanged vote on it.Peregrinus wrote: »
If May does succeed in getting the text of the WA changed then, yeah, she has to lay that before Parliament 21 sitting days before she can ratify it, or she has to get Parliament to vary or disapply that requirement. But of course ratifying the WA already needs legislative action in the UK - namely, the passage by Parliament of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. So this doesn't really add anything new; May needs parliamentary approval for and co-operation with the ratification of the WA, in the form of Parliament enacting the needed legislation. But that has been known all along.0 -
She's talking to the EU and saying she wants the text of the WA changed; the EU are saying they won't change the text of the WA ; a likely compromise - if there is a compromise - is no change to the WA text but some change to the Political Declaration and/or some protocol/codicile/whatever you want to call it additional to the WA offering further reassurance that the backstop is not intended to last forever.prawnsambo wrote: »And if she gets the text changed, that has to go back to the EuCO. So that's not a great option either. The problem with bringing an unchanged bill back to parliament is that you may well get an unchanged vote on it.
That kind of compromise might be enough to avoid the application of the 21-day rule under CRAG. But, whether it is or not, she still has to get the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through Parliament. And since the WAB hasn't event been published yet, and since it will contain some fairl meaty provisions which will attract opposition from those who dislike May's WA, getting it through all stages in both Houses is, um, not an afternoon's work.
Tl;dr: 21 March is not too late for May to seek and get an extension of the A50 period. But it is certainly much too late for her to put in train any process to ratify the WA if she's not going to seek an extension of the A50 period. if she starts that process on 22 March, it is not going to be fnished by 29 March.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »She's talking to the EU and saying she wants the text of the WA changed; the EU are saying they won't change the text of the WA ; a likely compromise - if there is a compromise - is no change to the WA text but some change to the Political Declaration and/or some protocol/codicile/whatever you want to call it additional to the WA offering further reassurance that the backstop is not intended to last forever.
That kind of compromise might be enough to avoid the application of the 21-day rule under CRAG. But, whether it is or not, she still has to get the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through Parliament. And since the WAB hasn't event been published yet, and since it will contain some fairl meaty provisions which will attract opposition from those who dislike May's WA, getting it through all stages in both Houses is, um, not an afternoon's work.
Tl;dr: 21 March is not too late for May to seek and get an extension of the A50 period. But it is certainly much too late for her to put in train any process to ratify the WA if she's not going to seek an extension of the A50 period. if she starts that process on 22 March, it is not going to be fnished by 29 March.
The hard 'no deal' brexiteers know about the catch 22 as outlined above. This is why they are insisting that they will not accept changes to the political declaration and need the actual WA renegotiated.
The danger all along was that the UK would sleepwalk over the edge and all these clowns who are waiting for the 11th hour so they can play their trump cards don't realise that they're already past the last minute. They've passed the deadline for renegotiating the WA before March 29, they're rapidly approaching the deadline for any agreement on extending Article 50 and in a weeks time the only realistic options may well be 'no deal' or 'no brexit'.
SNIP. No more insults please., leap out and swim against the current to the safety of the riverbank when they've in fact already passed the event horizon and are doomed to go over the cliff edge unless they are able to sound the alarm, call off the stunt off altogether and let the guys in the motorboat yank them back upstream by revoking article 50 entirely0 -
This tweet seems to have a progress system on the trade deals the UK wants to replicate from the EU. It isn't going well but there is 40-50 days left to secure those last few ones to ensure they stand still.
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/10954450628829429760 -
Well, not quite.The hard 'no deal' brexiteers know about the catch 22 as outlined above. This is why they are insisting that they will not accept changes to the political declaration and need the actual WA renegotiated.
The danger all along was that the UK would sleepwalk over the edge and all these clowns who are waiting for the 11th hour so they can play their trump cards don't realise that they're already past the last minute. They've passed the deadline for renegotiating the WA before March 29, they're rapidly approaching the deadline for any agreement on extending Article 50 and in a weeks time the only realistic options may well be 'no deal' or 'no brexit'.
These sad deluded cowards have believed the nonsense that Theresa May can allow the UK to float towards the waterfall in their wooden barrel thinking that they still have time to wriggle out of their chains, leap out and swim against the current to the safety of the riverbank when they've in fact already passed the event horizon and are doomed to go over the cliff edge unless they are able to sound the alarm, call off the stunt off altogether and let the guys in the motorboat yank them back upstream by revoking article 50 entirely
Imagine that the EU caves and agrees to amend the WA to eliminate the backstop. (I know, I know, but just pretend, as a thought experiment, for the purpose of teasing out how this works.)
May now has an amended WA which she needs to lay before Parliament. The CRAG Act requires her to do so 21 days before ratifying it. Let’s suppose that, when this happens, there aren’t 21 sitting days left before 29 March.
All is not lost. May needs to do the following:
1. Lay the new version of the WA before Parliament.
2. Introduce the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to Parliament, making the legislative changes that will be needed to implement the WA.
3. Include in the WA Bill a clause which exempts the WA from the 21-day requirement under the CRAG Act.
Assuming the WA Bill gets passed through both Houses before 29 March, all is well. May can ratify the WA, and the UK can implement it from 29 March.
There is version B of the same plan: When the EU caves and agrees to remove the backstop, May says “thanks very much, but this has happened very late in the day, so can we also have a two-month extension to the A50 Notice period, to 29 May?” (It doesn’t have to be exactly two months, obviously; just reasonably short.) Hard to see the EU refusing, particularly if May gets Parliament to pass a resolution approving the new version of the WA. May then uses the two months to get the WA Bill through Parliament and on to the statute book. In this scenario she doesn’t need to include a clause exempting the WA from the 21-day rule, since she will have ample time to comply with the 21-day rule.
OK. So in the unicorn-filled, fairy godmother-blessed, cake-rich world that Brexiters inhabit, There is plenty of time left in which to arrange a Brexit under a Withdrawal Agreement.
Here on Planet Earth, as we know, there is not going to be such a cave by the EU. But there may be some much lesser compromise. In that event, one of two things will happen.
A. The compromise is enough to secure endorsement of the WA by a majority of the Commons. It doesn’t matter who that majority is made up of. May then asks for and, on the reasoning above gets, a short extension of the A50 notice period in order to pilot the Withdrawal Bill through Parliament. Assuming the majority she has cobbled together to approve the WA holds (something not to be taken for granted) the UK brexits, on the terms of the WA, at the end of that extension period.
B. The compromise is not enough to secure endorsement by the Commons. In this scenario the options open are (a) revoke A50 notice; (b) seek a deferral; (c) no-deal Brexit. May is probably not inclined to revoke A50 notice, and Parliament probably wouldn’t support her if she tried to. So it comes down to (b) or (c); May would certainly prefer (b) and so would Parliament. The question is, in this scenario, will the EU agree to the extension?
That’s a really hard one to call, but my thought is probably, on balance, yes, but with conditions. First, it’ll only be a short extension, so that the EU Plt elections don’t have to include the UK. Secondly, May will have to convince the EU that she’s going to abandon trying to build a consensus with the ultra-Brexiters and look elsewhere (by which I mean the Labour party). The EU is keen to avoid a no-deal, but will only be tempted by an extension if the extension offers a plausible possibility of avoiding a no deal and at this point in the process it will be clear to all that continued attempts to appease the ultra-Brexiters are not going to do this do this. So the point of the extension will be to allow her to try something else.0 -
Here is an interesting article about how on Facebook there is still ads being bought by companies that has no history and their funding is not known at all. These ads are targeting no-deal or a hard Brexit.
Dark money is pushing for a no-deal Brexit. Who is behind it?Since mid-January an organisation called Britain’s Future has spent £125,000 on Facebook ads demanding a hard or no-deal Brexit. Most of them target particular constituencies. Where an MP is deemed sympathetic to the organisation’s aims, the voters who receive these ads are urged to tell him or her to “remove the backstop, rule out a customs union, deliver Brexit without delay”. Where the MP is deemed unsympathetic, the message is: “Don’t let them steal Brexit; Don’t let them ignore your vote.”
So who or what is Britain’s Future? Sorry, I have no idea. As openDemocracy points out, it has no published address and releases no information about who founded it, who controls it and who has been paying for these advertisements. The only person publicly associated with it is a journalist called Tim Dawson, who edits its website. Dawson has not yet replied to the questions I have sent him. It is, in other words, highly opaque. The anti-Brexit campaigns are not much better. People’s Vote and Best for Britain have also been spending heavily on Facebook ads, though not as much in recent weeks as Britain’s Future.
The author concludes you will not see action as the current system actually benefits those parties that have money or rich donors.0 -
Advertisement
-
After the 'leak' of what Olly Robbins said in a bar in Brussels last night (TM is going to wait unti lthe last minute and then offer the HoC her deal of a long postponement of Brexit) the expected talking heads are out claiming that Uk will be a colony of the EU. THis ties back the the language used by JRM and Johnson regarding vassalage.
Fintan O'Toole's book (though overly long and laboured throughout IMO) makes this point over and over again that the UK are casting the effects of colonisation onto themselves as if they have any idea what it actually means. To be colonised, one of course needs a coloniser and they have created the idea that somehow the EU is a foreign force taking over their land, their people, their laws and taking away their freedom.
They are, in the use of this language, trying to equate themselves with Ireland of the past or India.
Of course the real response to such claims is that surely the UK doesn't want to be a colony and as such surely withdrawal of A50 is the only path forward.
On a separate point, I thought the discussion about transport licences last night was telling. Posters such as Downcow continually call for both sides to simple agree for everything to stay the same. The want to keep the border open (this is protrayed as some sort of benevolence towards the ROI when in fact it is necessary to protect NI), they want the transport licences to stay the same, they want FOM to remain, they want something done in Calais so that their freight is not delayed, they seem happy to carry forward current EU regulations.
All in all, they pretty much want everything to remain the same. So one has to ask what the point of Brexit is. 3+ years of wasted time, HMG is completely comsumed by it, £bns of pounds spent on Brexit and the preparations, possible failure in the GFA, probable loss of direct access to the worlds largest single market. And for what?0 -
The UK don't need (and won't get) a long deferral of Brexit. What they need is to pass the WA and get into the transition period.0
-
Ford are moving out according to the Times...
https://twitter.com/JulieOwenMoylan/status/10955882600788541520 -
Stacksofwacks wrote: »Dont see what the point in delaying what looks like the inevitable. An extension should only be granted if there was a firm commitment on a second referendum and that would need to happen in a timely manner but i dont see that happening. If May cant get a deal through by March 29 which i dont see happening either whats the point in delaying any longer.
I very much agree with this. I don't see a delay doing anything except creating the headaches for The EU parliament around number of MPs, is it Quorate, etc. Could lead to Chaos in an body like EU0 -
Would an extension if granted be limited to May 23rd when the MEP elections take place?
The EU (I think it was Tusk or Juncker) have already ruled out an A50 extension past 22nd May, saying that the Brexit contagion can't be allowed to infect the European elections.Zubeneschamali wrote: »The UK don't need (and won't get) a long deferral of Brexit. What they need is to pass the WA and get into the transition period.
It might seem unfair to be so strict if the UK comes begging, but the enormous headache such an extension poses, doesn't seem worth the trouble.0 -
I don't see any chance of a long extension (by which I mean, long enough that the UK has to participate in the EU Plt elections) unless to accommodate some very dramatic game-changer, like a decision to hold another referendum (which I don't think is remotely likely).I very much agree with this. I don't see a delay doing anything except creating the headaches for The EU parliament around number of MPs, is it Quorate, etc. Could lead to Chaos in an body like EU
A short extension is possible in one, and maybe two, scenarios:
1. The UK Plt accepts a Withdrawal Agreement, but needs time to pass the legislation needed to ratify and implement it, or to prepare in other ways.
2. (Possibly) there is no agreement, but May can persuade the EU that, given just a little more time, there could be. The EU wouldn't want to rule out the possiblity of an agreed Brexit before it absolutely has to. But I think for such a representation by May to be plausible, she'd have to indicate that she was going to do something different from what she has been doing up to now - e.g. she's going to seek cross-party agreement with Labour, or maybe with the SNP. And, myself, I'm not sure that she would give such indications.0 -
The EU (I think it was Tusk or Juncker) have already ruled out an A50 extension past 22nd May, saying that the Brexit contagion can't be allowed to infect the European elections.
It might seem unfair to be so strict if the UK comes begging, but the enormous headache such an extension poses, doesn't seem worth the trouble.
It doesn't when you see the way the UK has tried to portray the EU throughout all this.
Being dismissive of the collective strength of the union. Suggesting other countries would ignore the EU just to talk to the UK. The media saying that the UK will fold and acquiesce near the end. The inability to produce effective plans. Reneging on an agreement. Portraying the EU as elitists.
It is unbelievable, yet true, that such an international event affecting 550M people over several years could be accurately portrayed in a 2 minute sketch as Foil Arms and Hogg did.0 -
The Ford news will be waved away as simply another failing brand blaming Brexit for poor sales, diesel, battery cars moving to China etc.
And in part they have a point in that these companies are always reviewing things and looking for alternatives.
But, it is far easier to stay where you are and make improvements rather than setting everything up from scratch some place else. What Brexit has done, undoubtedly, is given these companies added negatives to the UK argument. Previously, they would be prepared to put up with some additional costs because of location, ease of access to the EU market, language, law etc etc. But Brexit is tearing that all up and in effect UK is removing a major bonus card they had in their hand.
What Brexit has done is guaranteed that these companies would move.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19470
Here’s why we are headed for hard borders.
I suggested that it would make sense for Eu and UK to talk to each other about lorry access into each other’s markets.
There then comes a tyraid of anger that I could suggest Co-operation.
You are reading it all wrong. Eu & uk will have the sense to sort this stuff to mutual benifit. Seems Ireland may end up on the sidelines pleading with Eu to not talk to those nasty people in the UK
It has all been sorted with quite a lot of cooperation. It is called the Withdrawal Agreement.
This was negotiated over the last two years, and agreed by both sides. Why should there be any further negotiations?0 -
Advertisement
-
They want everything to stay the same that benefits them and scrap anything that doesn't, essentially, is what I read into it. Rights to the single market without any of the responsibilities.All in all, they pretty much want everything to remain the same. So one has to ask what the point of Brexit is. 3+ years of wasted time, HMG is completely comsumed by it, £bns of pounds spent on Brexit and the preparations, possible failure in the GFA, probable loss of direct access to the worlds largest single market. And for what?
And anyone who dares stand in their way of that vision is an intransigent bully.
It might be a very cruel response but I don't think fairness or otherwise comes into this. The behaviour of the UK in this whole affair has been utterly despicable.It might seem unfair to be so strict if the UK comes begging, but the enormous headache such an extension poses, doesn't seem worth the trouble.
Their parliament and media called both Ireland the EU as a whole every name under the sun, thrown torrents of very personal abuse at Varadkar, Coveney, Juncker, Barnier and Verhofstadt and laid all the blame for the sorry mess, entirely of their making, at our doors.
They haven't given a toss of concern on how their decision might impact the entire EU - especially Ireland. In fact, some over their appear to take great delight in holding the potential for negative impact over our heads as some sort of warped threat in the bargaining process.
I take no delight in watching the impending train wreck approaching that very steep cliff face, especially given I have relatives over there (who made sure to avail of their Irish passports!) but the UK need to own this and bear the full and brutal impact of the consequences of their extremely big decision.
The EU nor Ireland won't get a single thanks from anyone in the UK by trying to protect them from their own actions any further, if they did, the UK would sooner come walking safely back down the cliff face, having just been rescued, sticking their tongues out at IE/EU and jeering and waving their flag in our faces, than admit they did anything wrong.
And the anti-EU cycle would then resume worse then ever before.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement