Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

Shelga wrote: »

I was shocked at first but now it’s like- ok, Brexit is definitely happening, and under these terms- and yeah, the internal UK stuff just isn’t that compelling when you don’t live there.

But I think part of the reason I’ve paid so much attention to it all over the last 3 years is the high drama of it all!

To a certain extent yes, the drama was great. But (for me anyway) it was great to be an observer of what appeared to be a historic and seismic shift in British politics (akin to what we had in France two years ago).

Then, after all the high drama of the supposed Rebel Alliance's stance against the WA, the parties allowed everything to collapse back to bog standard tribal politics and the electorate decided to validate governance based on lies and unicornism.


As for Farage and the Brexit Party: well, they're only raison d'être at the moment is to cause trouble in the European Parliament. Come the 31st Jan, they won't have even that (yay! long life to the zombie MEPs, finally woken from their undead state! :pac: ). I would imagine the BxP and UKIP would shrivel up, maybe fuse together with elements of other English nationalism and become some kind of "movement" with no purpose other than to make noise and wave flags. Perhaps, in time, the DUP could join them too!

GM228

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does anyone know much about the legal mechanics of the E.E.A.?

Just reading up a bit on it there, and I think that, in much the same way as the inner workings of both the E.U. Treaties, the W.T.O. and the U.K. Parliament have become analysed and discussed in a manner unlike any time previously over the last 3 years, the next year will involve detailed scrutiny of the E.E.A.

Signed in 1992, it would seem at first glance (and according to a leading U.K. law firm) to be an agreement between the E.U. on the one part and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein on the other. However, it could also be considered a multi party agreement between the individual states and also with the E.U.. Croatia, for example, had to apply to join the E.E.A. when they joined the E.U., and their application has not been formally accepted as of yet. Under Art 128 E.E.A.A., new member States of the E.U. have to apply to be members of the E.E.A. Logically, if the E.E.A. interprets Art 128 as membership is not automatic with E.U. Membership, then logically it would also consider that leaving the E.E.A. is not automatic upon leaving the E.U., particularly as there is an express provision for leaving in Art 127.

Art 127 of the E.E.A. Agreement requires 12 months notice of intention to leave. It seems to be the case that no formal application to leave has been received, and it is assumed, but not necessarily the case, that upon leaving the E.U. the U.K. will leave the E.E.A. as well.

However, what if that is not the case. Boris will have to serve a notice to leave the E.E.A. under Article 127 by the end of the year. Is it possible that the U.K. Government has simply overlooked this? Unlikely, as this was flagged as an issue since 2016. It's also strange that the E.E.A. Council hasn't expressed an opinion on this. I guess it's because it has been second fiddle to the Brexit Negotiations, but now I think it is going to become relevant.

Assuming the following:
1. The EU wants as close a trading relationship with the UK as possible;
2. In the Boris Johnson era, Theresa May's red lines are a light shade of pink at best; and
3. The U.K. needs a win, and fast;

then we could have the following scenario:

1. Media campaign talking about how wonderful the E.F.T.A. association was. Inspired by that great visionary Winston Churchill, worked on by Sir Anthony Eden and finally brought in by that dear fellow Harold Macmillan, it was an alternative, if not a rival to, the European Economic Community;
2. The E.E.A. will be discussed as the natural successor to that august institution which was led before by the U.K., and will be led by them again;
3. Proud independent and wealthy countries like Iceland and Norway are E.E.A. Members, and they keep their precious fishing rights. The U.K. would do well to be like them;
4. Economic benefits of the Single Market will be praised, no one will mention that the E.E.A. involves payments to other countries nor that it has almost the same level of free movement of persons rights nor that the ECJ is the arbiter of disputes. Emphasis will be placed on the greater scope for state aid to poorer regions under E.E.A. than E.U. Also, the ability to enter into ones own separate customs arrangements is what Brexit really is about;
5. The U.K. Government will suddenly pretend to panic and say "oh dear, we forgot to leave the E.E.A." By this time, people will be saying "the E.E.A. isn't so bad, it's not the evil E.U. Then Boris requests that the E.E.A. make some changes, maybe a few caveats on free movement of persons and a protocol on U.K. fishing and suddenly being the lead nation in the E.E.A. sounds like the ideal position for a proud and sensible people like the British. Maybe an independent Court for the E.E.A. which is modeled on the E.C.J. but has different personnel could be agreed.

Now, not all of the above is fatually accurate, but it fits in well with the Brexit narrative. Even Farage etc must accept that they wanted a Norway style "deal", and if they get to be the leading member of the E.E.A. with all the status and respect that that brings, then the wing of Brexiteers who want to see Britain's glorious rise to being a leader of nations rather than a rule taker will gladly cheer it on.

TLDR; I don't see a downside to the U.K. defaulting to being "just" an E.E.A. Member after December, 2020. All parties should work towards making that happen. And they won't be "trapped", because they can leave at any time with 12 months' notice!

Yes, I posted this post a few years ago which touches on some of your points:-

GM228 wrote: »

brandodub wrote:

The article in the Lisbon treaty sets out a framework for leaving the EU. It doesn't mention the EEA.

Exactly, it's about leaving the EU, not the EEA. Membership of the EEA is governed by the EEA Agreement, not any EU agreements.

brandodub wrote:

In any case the EEA members must accept most regulations and directives from the Commission with no input from them. EEA members must also pay into the EU budget and the biggest contention from the UK- continued free movement of people.

EEA payments are considerably less than EU payments. A guide to the estimated costs of the EEA vs the EU is here:-

https://euquestion.blogspot.ie/2016/04/the-cost-of-eu-membership-versus-efta.html

EU costs for 2016 is estimated to be £8.427 billion when you take away rebates, funding, grants etc, estimated EEA costs for 2016 would be £1.079 billion – massive difference.

EEA member states implement about 75% of EU rules, however something too few may be aware of is under Article 102 of the EEA agreement there is a “right of reservation” which provides EEA members with the right to reject a particular piece of EU legislation, even if it is relevant and falls within their membership agreement. However, the consequence of exercising this right is that the EU can choose to suspend any associated rights of the EEA states to linked benefits, such as market access. Moreover, when using the reservation rights, the EEA states are obliged to enter into negotiations to find a suitable solution for all parties. This entire process, and the extent to which single market access would be limited, remains untested. Norway used, but then withdrew, the right of reservation for the first time over the EU postal directive in 2011.

First Up wrote:

OK - here's a slightly longer one:

Have you got that in writing?

I could ask you the exact same thing.

The EEA agreement does not state that leaving the EU also means leaving the EEA, thus this will become a matter of political discussion.

As per Article 128 of the EEA Agreement application for membership (as opposed to actual membership) is conditional of being part of the EU or EFTA, but the UK passed the application stage and satisfied the requirements of Article 128 23 years ago.

http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main%20Text%20of%20the%20Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf

Article 128 wrote:

1. Any European State becoming a member of the Community shall, and the Swiss Confederation or any European State becoming a member of EFTA may, apply to become a party to this Agreement. It shall address its application to the EEA Council.

2. The terms and conditions for such participation shall be the subject of an agreement between the Contracting Parties and the applicant State. That agreement shall be submitted for ratification or approval by all Contracting Parties in accordance with their own procedures.

Now unless you have actually seen the terms and conditions of the UKs agreement then you can’t say with any certainty that the UK would automatically leave the EEA, but I’m pretty confident that there isn’t any such term stating they must be part of the EU since the UK Governments report “Alternatives to Membership. Possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union” states that the UK can seek to remain in the EEA with the agreement of all EEA members. The “Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs UK/EU Future Relationship: Implications for Ireland” also suggests the UK can remain in the EEA.

The EEA Agreement is a bilateral agreement covered by treaty law and the UK could not be expelled without consent of ALL contracting parties – a catch 22 if the UK don’t want to leave and refuse to agree to their own expulsion.

The only mention in the EEA Agreement about leaving the EEA is that any contracting member can leave provided they give 12 months notice as per the terms of treaty law.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) comes into play.

Article 62. FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
(a) The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and
(b) The effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still
to be performed under the treaty.

2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:
(a) If the treaty establishes a boundary; or
(b) If the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

As there isn’t actually a provision in the EEA Agreement for continued EU membership to be in place for continued EEA membership a change of circumstances can’t be invoked as a ground for termination or withdrawal from the treaty as there isn't anything in the treaty stating that EU membership is an essential basis of the consent of the UK to be bound by the treaty.

17-pdr wrote:

And it appears the British remain undecided as to which option they want to go with in the event of a Brexit.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/david-cameron-issues-warning-over-brexit-border-controls-1.2685814

To be honest I think threats like the CTA future being unknown and the borders issues are simply scaremongering to try and secure a stay vote and nothing more. Just like the stay campaign say the various non EU trade agreements would have to be re-negotiated which isn’t necessarily true.

The CTA is legally protected by EU law and the various trade agreements are most likely protected by the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (VCSST), and the borders/trade issue will be easily dealt with under the provisions of EU law.

Article 50 requires the EU to conclude an agreement with the seceding state, “taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union“. Notably, Articles 3,4 8 and 21 of the TFEU require the EU to “contribute to … free and fair trade” and to “work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to … encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade” and to adhere to the “principle of sincere cooperation […] in full mutual respect” and “assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.”

Moreover, the VCLT obligates negotiators to act in “good faith” and “good faith” itself is an underlying principle of international law.

The EU negotiators must therefore endeavour to reduce trade restrictions in accordance with treaty provisions and, crucially, their actions are justiciable. If EU negotiators were to veer away from treaty provisions, or indeed if any other EU member sought to impose sanctions or restrict trade, the UK could lodge a formal complaint with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and block the discriminatory action.

It must be remembered that during the Article 50 negotiations the UK remains a member of the EU and enjoys the full rights and privileges of membership. The Commission itself may be legally obliged to step in and begin infringement proceedings against the offending member state.

However, it is important to note that negotiations conducted within the remit of the treaties still allows the EU flexibility in the nature of the trade agreement concluded with the seceding state. The EU is not obliged to conclude a FTA within two years (even if this was feasible there is no legal obligation).

The isea that the EU could possibly refuse to unilaterally impose trade barriers on Britain is not true. It would be a violation of EU law, which is further reinforced by international law.

A more valid concern would be that the EU would not necessarily readily embrace an outcome favourable to the UK and perceivably detrimental to the EU. Hence the absolute necessity of choosing the option that is right for the UK, but also acceptable to the EU.

johnnyskeleton

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah, but ... if you'll excuse this very rough translation from the original Norwegian: "they can feck right off if they think we're going to let a bunch of imperialists like them join the EEA!" :pac:

I see how the Westminster/UK media would paint the picture you describe, but both camps seem to have forgotten that in the 21st Century, you can't just barge into someone else's territory - you have to ask nicely, and you may (or may not) be allowed join the club. When the UK is proudly shouting "Chagos Islands? They're ours, mate; sod off" it's going to be difficult to convince the Scandinavians and the Swiss that they're a great bunch of lads who like to govern by consensus.[/QUOTE]

Well on my analysis anyways, the UK won't need to join the E.E.A., they will simply need to not quit.

As for Norway, while there are grumblings, even in the event that they had to readmit the UK, there are clear indications that they would ultimately allow it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-britain-join-european-economic-area-single-market-norway-eea-a8350681.html

The Norwegian government can reach consensus just as much as E.U. Members can.

54and56

Shelga wrote: »

I’m going to have to start finding non-political podcasts

Without falling foul of the off-topic rule I'd strongly recommend Tim Howards Cautionary Tales podcast where he tells true stories about mistakes people make and what should learned from them, only a question of time before there's a Brexit chapter

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Norwegian government can reach consensus just as much as E.U. Members can.

Yes, the Norwegians can (and do); it's the UK that has trouble understanding government by consensus! In any case, being part of the EEA is essentially the worst case "vassal state" scenario that motivates the Brexit Party and ERG. Given that it has been they who have dictated the narrative of the last ten years, I cant see them allowing anyone as shallow as Johnson to accidentally sign them up to a BRINO deal. Especially now that they've succeeded in persuading hard-core, working class, Labour supporters to vote Tory.

54and56

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, the Norwegians can (and do); it's the UK that has trouble understanding government by consensus! In any case, being part of the EEA is essentially the worst case "vassal state" scenario that motivates the Brexit Party and ERG. Given that it has been they who have dictated the narrative of the last ten years, I cant see them allowing anyone as shallow as Johnson to accidentally sign them up to a BRINO deal. Especially now that they've succeeded in persuading hard-core, working class, Labour supporters to vote Tory.

It's possible a scenario could emerge (or be engineered) whereby the UK has to make a fundamental political and economic choice between hitching it's wagon to a Trump led USA over 4,000 miles away (which really matters for trade in goods) or the EU which is only 20 miles away and when the cold hard commercial analysis is done remaining close to if not in the EU may well win out in which case a combination of Brexit fatigue and sleight of hand by BoJo the master snake oil salesman could create a scenario where relative to being a slave to Trump being a member of the EEA could be seen as the very definition of independence and sovereignty!!

woohoo!!!

54and56 wrote: »

It's possible a scenario could emerge (or be engineered) whereby the UK has to make a fundamental political and economic choice between hitching it's wagon to a Trump led USA over 4,000 miles away (which really matters for trade in goods) or the EU which is only 20 miles away and when the cold hard commercial analysis is done remaining close to if not in the EU may well win out in which case a combination of Brexit fatigue and sleight of hand by BoJo the master snake oil salesman could create a scenario where relative to being a slave to Trump being a member of the EEA could be seen as the very definition of independence and sovereignty!!

Reality won't get in way of a good yarn/propaganda. I wonder are those Dutch lads going to be throwing that beach party the end of January? Possibly too cold.

BorneTobyWilde

What's UK's fascination with a high pound.

''Pound is 1.18, and in few weeks it will be 1.25 or more, wahoo, omg amazing ''

Every other country tries to weaken their currency and the UK cheer that's it's getting stronger and stronger. Already it has put me off buying certain things, surely it's the same for everyone. They'll do no trade with such a high pound.

Bit cynical

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

TLDR; I don't see a downside to the U.K. defaulting to being "just" an E.E.A. Member after December, 2020. All parties should work towards making that happen. And they won't be "trapped", because they can leave at any time with 12 months' notice!

They are signatories in their own right of the EEA. It is a sort of fall back position if everything goes wrong in the transition period. If they get a good deal then they will simply ignore their membership of the EEA and no outside parties will hold them to it.

lawred2

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

What's UK's fascination with a high pound.

''Pound is 1.18, and in few weeks it will be 1.25 or more, wahoo, omg amazing ''

Every other country tries to weaken their currency and the UK cheer that's it's getting stronger and stronger. Already it has put me off buying certain things, surely it's the same for everyone. They'll do no trade with such a high pound.

Well their wealth is measured in pounds no?

Their buying power is determined by the strength of the pound.

GM228

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

What's UK's fascination with a high pound.

''Pound is 1.18, and in few weeks it will be 1.25 or more, wahoo, omg amazing ''

Every other country tries to weaken their currency and the UK cheer that's it's getting stronger and stronger. Already it has put me off buying certain things, surely it's the same for everyone. They'll do no trade with such a high pound.

Appreciation in currently means a higher value of sterling makes imports cheaper for UK consumers, but, UK exports become more expensive.

An appreciation in the exchange rate though will tend to reduce the AD (aggregate demand) because exports will fall and imports increase meaning lower economic growth, but, it is also likely to reduce inflation.

But it must be treated cautiously, for example, in 1979 and 1980, the UK had a sharp appreciation in the exchange rates, partly due to the discovery of North Sea oil. The value of the Pound increased by about 60% and this was a factor in causing the recession of 1981 – which particularly affected UK exports and manufacturing.

Enzokk

Remember how Brexit is about taking control from unelected bureaucrats?

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1206643004389376000?s=20

Nicky Morgan has stood down as an MP but gets to keep her ministerial job without the hassle of dealing with voters, and she receives a peerage. Not bad at all.

Then we have some whispers on the bill Johnson will bring back, seems like there will be changes and they are not going to shout soft Brexit.

Boris Johnson could ditch promise to protect workers' rights and environmental protections after Brexit, No 10 suggests

Boris Johnson has fuelled fears that workers’ rights and environmental safeguards will be ditched after Brexit after the government watered down a promise to enshrine them in law.

Downing Street suggested that the prime minister is no longer committed to pledges, made to MPs before the general election, to guarantee that standards will not be weakened when Britain leaves the EU.

A promise that MPs would be given a vote on whether or not to extend the transition period at the end of 2020 to avoid leaving the EU without a trade deal has also been ditched and will not be included in a key Brexit bill to be reintroduced this week.

The pledges were made by Mr Johnson and his team in October as they attempted to convince MPs to vote for the prime minister’s Brexit deal.

I was a bit down by the result of the election, but the anarchist is me is excited to find out what will happen in the future under Johnson. Those voters in the North who voted for him through clenched teeth will be feeling even worse if Johnson ignores them to do what he wants because he has his majority.

Brexit isn't just about Brexit. It's also about paving the way for other member states of the EU to opt to Leave.

Poland, Slovenia, and Italy are three such countries.

47 percent of Poles believe that a bright future for our country extends only if Poland leaves the European Union. The opposite view is 45%. of us, and 8 percent there is no opinion on this.

Poles and Slovenes are even more critical of the Union than the British, and yet Britain is on the eve of leaving its structures . 42% believe in a better future after Brexit, 45 percent have the opposite view.

Italians are also critical of their future in the Union's structures. 44% of them see their country outside the EU structures as in the United Kingdom. 46 percent would like to stay in them.

So whilst it may take some time to witness the dissolution of the EU, as some -- such as I -- wish to see, these statistics are encouraging.

Brexit has laid the foundation stone of a return to the nation-state.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit isn't just about Brexit. It's also about paving the way for other member states of the EU to opt to Leave.

Poland, Slovenia, and Italy are three such countries.



So whilst it may take some time to witness the dissolution of the EU, as some -- such as I -- wish to see, these statistics are encouraging.

Brexit has laid the foundation stone of a return to the nation-state.

Nope. You're at it again.

A Kantor poll in September of 1,000 Polish people living in Poland shows that 75% would vote Remain and 4% (yes 4%!) would vote Leave.

A Censis poll of Italians last week found that 62% want to remain while 25% want to leave.

Looks like the UK is out on its own.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope. You're at it again.

A Kantor poll in September of 1,000 Polish people living in Poland shows that 75% would vote Remain and 4% (yes 4%!) would vote Leave.

Kantor also conducted the poll I quoted - results of which were recent, and not based on an August poll. :rolleyes:

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit isn't just about Brexit. It's also about paving the way for other member states of the EU to opt to Leave.

Poland, Slovenia, and Italy are three such countries.



So whilst it may take some time to witness the dissolution of the EU, as some -- such as I -- wish to see, these statistics are encouraging.

Brexit has laid the foundation stone of a return to the nation-state.

Lies. Please link better pages that has the actual poll information instead of random websites from the internet. I will link newspaper stories from the same poll your link refers to as well which disputes your link.

Support for EU membership above 80% in most member states amid Brexit mess

Support for remaining in the EU stands at well over 80 per cent in the majority of member states, a new continent-wide poll has found – with Britain’s political crisis apparently a poor advert for leaving.

The survey by Kantar asked people how they would vote in an in-out referendum and found that Luxembourg (94 per cent), Portugal (92 per cent), Ireland (91 per cent), and the Netherlands (91 per cent) had the highest support for EU membership out of the 28 countries in the bloc.

Apart from the UK the highest level of support for leaving was in the Czech Republic, where 66 per cent supported Remain and 34 per cent Leave. Italy was close behind as the next most Eurosceptic country, with 72 per cent Remain and 28 per cent Leave. Austria and France were the third and fourth most Eurosceptic.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Kantor also conducted the poll I quoted - results of which were recent, and not based on an August poll. :rolleyes:

Show me the data.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Kantor also conducted the poll I quoted - results of which were recent, and not based on an August poll. :rolleyes:

Link to the poll please. That means since April the attitude in Poland has gone from more than 70% remain to 40% or so. That is a dramatic shift in attitude that will surely have major newspapers that support Brexit showing these results. It shouldn't be hard to get some links for your claims.

J Mysterio

That Nicki Morgan story is absolutely scandalous. I had no respect for her before, but this has conclusively proved she has no honour whatsoever.

Talk about unelected bureaucrats! Given a life peerage just like that. No need to be elected or face the public vote - we'll gerrymander it for you Nicki!

The UK public are such suckers to have put this lot back in with such a majority. Shame on them.

A Dub in Glasgo

Johnson is just following in a long line to do that

Morgan was on Fridays 'Have I Got News For You' and she must have had an inkling about the move. Admittedly messrs Hislop, Richardson, Armstrong and Merton did extract the urine

J Mysterio

Boris is wasting no time in moving to secure the second Reich.


Boris Johnson to redraw electoral map to consolidate majority

Eric Cartman

J Mysterio wrote: »

Boris is wasting no time in moving to secure the second Reich.


Boris Johnson to redraw electoral map to consolidate majority

reforming a system that currently gives an in-built advantage to Labour.

I thought the modern day was all about equality and breaking down barriers to make everything equal. The left should rejoice for equality

Christy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I thought the modern day was all about equality and breaking down barriers to make everything equal. The left should rejoice for equality

But the recent gains from Labour might make him rethink how he does it. (To paraphrase the same article). Surely what is equal is equal and has little to do with what Labour or the Tories just won.

Does that sentence make it sound like Boris wants equality? He is redrawing it for his own advantage. Why not set up an independent commission for it? Surely the most sensible.

J Mysterio

It's the Telegraph. They will look to justify whatever moves Johnson makes. In this case, that means saying there is a current advantage to Labour.

While I doubt that that's the case, it's largely irrelevant in any event as the article clearly indicates that the intention is to change the boundaries to favour the Tories, not make it equal.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit has laid the foundation stone of a return to the nation-state.

Grand so: an independent Scotland, Wales and England it is then.

There might also be an argument in favour of restoring the Celtic nation of Cornwall, seeing as they have no real common bond with the Roundheads and Cavaliers of Middle England. Perhaps they could campaign for reunification with their true cultural bothers in Cornouaille ...

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

Boris is wasting no time in moving to secure the second Reich.


Boris Johnson to redraw electoral map to consolidate majority

Difficult to have any sympathy for the UK electorate, no matter what unfolds. They've handed 365 seats to a shifty type who has form for lying on an industrial scale.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

Grand so: an independent Scotland, Wales and England it is then.

There might also be an argument in favour of restoring the Celtic nation of Cornwall, seeing as they have no real common bond with the Roundheads and Cavaliers of Middle England. Perhaps they could campaign for reunification with their true cultural bothers in Cornouaille ...

What about Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria?

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Difficult to have any sympathy for the UK electorate, no matter what unfolds. They've handed 365 seats to a shifty type who has form for lying on an industrial scale.

Agreed. It's the collateral damge to Ireland that concerns me.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Grand so: an independent Scotland, Wales and England it is then.

There might also be an argument in favour of restoring the Celtic nation of Cornwall, seeing as they have no real common bond with the Roundheads and Cavaliers of Middle England. Perhaps they could campaign for reunification with their true cultural bothers in Cornouaille ...

England want to be part of the UK.

...dare I say, as do Wales.

Scotland opted to Remain in 2014. All recent polls approve this result.

What is your point?

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agreed. It's the collateral damge to Ireland that concerns me.

No Deal would be a big setback of course, but I would be far more worried about everything if I was a UK citizen and resident. The penny doesn't seem to have dropped with many that they have just elected someone who it will be physically impossible to remove for five years, no matter how bad things get - all opponents of his have left the party or been kicked out by him.