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 XIII (Please read OP before posting)
Comments
-
-
Is anyone surprised? Perfidious Albion.0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90423
yesYes, rules of origin would require particularly close watching.
Weren’t they doing a scam with VAT on Chinese imports a few years ago?
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301-xi/30115.htmIn a July 2017 report on fraud affecting the EU budget (the so-called PIF Report), the European Commission repeated allegations by the EU’s anti-fraud body OLAF that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) had enabled importers of Chinese textiles and footwear to evade customs duties totalling €1.98 billion (£1.76 billion)108 between 2013 and 2016 by declaring fraudulently low values.
And it means the EU and the French in particular will be keeping a close eye on the goods the UK exports.
The UK has form on using it's veto/influence to allow cheap Chinese imports in to the UK. It's likely that the EU will have higher barriers to China than the UK (China can pull the plug on HS2 and new UK Nuclear power etc.) so the temptation to use fake 'Phoenix' companies to hide origins will only increase.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90423
The UK car industry is screwed unless they can get third countries where most of the UK output goes to allow EU content in UK cars.Yes, rules of origin
It's likely that if there is a trade deal the EU will agree to EU content counting.
BUT if the EU plays hardball then over 60% of the UK car exports will have WTO tariffs. ( Turkey has to follow EU rules for cars )
Most of the rest of the UK's car exports go to US and China. "sign here, bitch"0 -
No Deal it is. There's no scope for continuing after this move. I feel a small amount of pity for the normal working people of the U.K. who will ultimately bear the brunt of it all...but they voted for it so I have quite a limited supply.0
-
Advertisement
-
Just watched Newsnight and there was a discussion between David Gauke and the Brexit Party member Ben Habib
Good old Brexit Party turns the debate into blaming the EU for all of UK's faults
The EU is really the big bad bogeyman
I just want them to crash out at this point and their economy turning to ruin.0 -
Yeah just watched him (Ben Habib), ranting that it doesn't matter if its internationally illegal, the 'Court of public opinion' makes it alright.
Absolute populism personified. As long as we're happy, who cares what's legal or the consequences0 -
Just watched Newsnight and there was a discussion between David Gauke and the Brexit Party member Ben Habib
Good old Brexit Party turns the debate into blaming the EU for all of UK's faults
The EU is really the big bad bogeyman
I just want them to crash out at this point and their economy turning to ruin.
Why are the Brexit party on the TV. It may as well been a debate between Gauke and the greens at least they've an MP0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90423
Balance :rolleyes:LeinsterDub wrote: »Why are the Brexit party on the TV. It may as well been a debate between Gauke and the greens at least they've an MP
https://twitter.com/Klujypop/status/10182176090100121600 -
Yeah just watched him (Ben Habib), ranting that it doesn't matter if its internationally illegal, the 'Court of public opinion' makes it alright.
Absolute populism personified. As long as we're happy, who cares what's legal or the consequences
Bizarrely, this may be the Tory Party's opinion as well (the Conservatives and the Brexit Party being virtually identical these days).0 -
Advertisement
-
The wording of the legislation that the UK government brings forward to annul parts of the WA will be important. According to George Peretz, there has to be a very explicit overriding of the WA, not just something that attempts to interpret the WA in the UK's favour. Why? Because if there isn't an explicit override, the WA itself reigns supreme under British domestic law and it the UK courts that would directly enforce any ECJ ruling. While this would be fun to watch, the UK government is not that stupid and will have to write in an explicit override.
That's why Brandon Lewis answered the way that he did in the House of Commons today. I'd guess that he knew that the legislation is clear and wasn't going to die on his sword to defend the UK gov's line that this is just a "tidying up exercise". I doubt No 10 was expecting his candour -- evidently they had been pushing the "tidying up" line for about 18 hours until Lewis dropped his bombshell statement.
So we end up with proposed legislation that has to be blunt about its intent. That will put at least some Tory MPs in a very awkward position -- I'd expect at least a few abstentions, e.g. by Theresa May. However, it's probably a safe assumption that it will get through the Commons -- Johnson's majority is just too big.
The House of Lords is a different question and there could be a major battle there. Further, the Salisbury Convention might not apply -- so the second chamber might be able to exert its will more forceably than otherwise. It could potentially delay the passage of any law by up to a year -- more than enough to scupper Johnson's governments intent.
Either way, Brexit will run and run. Expect Labour to make a big deal about Johnson dragging things out, playing to the British public's extreme weariness with the topic...0 -
One of Joe Biden's foreign policy advisors sent this out:
https://twitter.com/ABlinken/status/1303463396227063808
And this was Congressman Brendan Boyle's response:
https://twitter.com/RepBrendanBoyle/status/1303470141511012352
Nice to see our friends across the pond reminding the UK of their responsibilities.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
I thought Emily Maitlis did an excellent job putting him pin to collar. Asking that question "do you think the court of public opinion is more important than the law" twice and getting mealy mouthed answers is good journalism. It's a pity she ran out of time.
As regards the raining analogy, I don't think it necessarily applies as the majority view in the UK, whether we like it or not, is that Brexit is happening. It isn't exactly a fringe view, nor is leaving with no deal and tearing up agreements a fringe view. In fact, you could say that almost by definition, having someone who is prepared to stand over the decision of the Prime Minister/Government can never be a espousing a view that isn't worth interrogating and can simply be ignored.
So it's great that he was on and was unable to show that there was merit to the UK Govt's proposal.0 -
I was actually wondering if Brandon Lewis was actually rebelling slightly against the government position - admitting it was an illegality. (Or in the alternative, was it the UK government plan to signal in advance? If so why now and why dissimulate in advance?).Rain Ascending wrote: »That's why Brandon Lewis answered the way that he did in the House of Commons today. I'd guess that he knew that the legislation is clear and wasn't going to die on his sword to defend the UK gov's line that this is just a "tidying up exercise". I doubt No 10 was expecting his candour -- evidently they had been pushing the "tidying up" line for about 18 hours until Lewis dropped his bombshell statement
EDIT: so apparently he read out the position which means it was most likely a government position:
.0 -
... But unless you have the UK government do the defending of their own position, it's rather pointless - no?johnnyskeleton wrote: »In fact, you could say that almost by definition, having someone who is prepared to stand over the decision of the Prime Minister/Government can never be a espousing a view that isn't worth interrogating and can simply be ignored.
So it's great that he was on and was unable to show that there was merit to the UK Govt's proposal.0 -
Not sure if mentioned but Brendan Boyle spoke to BBC Radio 4 yesterday and did a great job spelling things out. This was before Brandon Lewis made his statement about breaking international law. Starts 48 minutes in:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mcy40 -
Third countries don't particularly care if the UK violates treaty commitments it has made to the EU. But they do care if the UK violates, or might violate, treatly commitments it makes to them. And the fact that it is open about violating the WA, for such a transparently baseless reason, might suggest that, yeah, it would not hesitate to treat other countries in the same way for short-term domestic political advantage.Third parties won't really care: so long as they make sure their interests are covered (e.g. a (perhaps now even more) robust dispute resolution mechanism) and they are happy. Why should they care?
I don't think this concern is allayed by getting "a robust dispute resolution mechanism". Banks don't lend you money if they think it likely that you won't or can't repay and they'll have to enforce the mortgage; property developers don't contract with housebuilder who are likely to omit the damp-proof course on the basis that they will be able to claim under the guarantee scheme for the cost of remedying the defect. Nobody makes a contract that they expect the other party not to observe, and countries are no different.0 -
Absolutely. This move makes it extremely difficult for the EU to conclude an FTA with the UK. And the UK government must know this.An obvious question comes to mind : could Brexit UK even be trusted to stick to the terms of a trade deal with the EU and not start kicking off next year?
This must be something that is starting to deeply concern Michel Barnier and the rest of the EU i.e they sign the trade deal to buy themselves some time but with the intention of ripping it up in due course and becoming a competitor of the EU.
Either the UK government backtracks very quickly and very publicly on this, or I think we can safely conclude that they are definitely set on a no-deal end to transition. No country actually hoping to make a treaty with the EU would prepare the ground by announcing that they intend to violate the treaty they have just made with the EU.
(On the bright side, at least we won't have to put up with any more sh!te from Brexiters about no-deal being an "Australia-style deal" or an "Australia-style trading relationship". Not even the dimmest Brexiter can imagine that Australia constructed its trading relationship with the EU by making a treaty with the EU and then imediately violating it.)0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Absolutely. This move makes it extremely difficult for the EU to conclude an FTA with the UK. And the UK government must know this.
Either the UK government backtracks very quickly and very publicly on this, or I think we can safely conclude that they are definitely set on a no-deal end to transition. No country actually hoping to make a treaty with the EU would prepare the ground by announcing that they intend to violate the treaty they have just made with the EU.
It's an extraordinary state of affairs. They're not even attempting to hide that they've gone rogue and are not to be trusted.
I'd say this must be weighing heavily on Barnier's mind now.....is he negotiating with a bunch of liars and spivs and would the trade deal not even be worth the paper it's written on?
Emerged today that Johnson told the ERG to ratify the WA last January, as he could renege on it at any point in future....he told them he didn't consider it binding.0 -
Even before this blew up, Barnier was making public statements to the effect that the comprehensive good-faith implementation of the WA was a necessary foundation for any trade deal. (Possibly he had some clue that the UK was contemplating the step it has just taken?)It's an extraordinary state of affairs. They're not even attempting to hide that they've gone rogue and are not to be trusted.
I'd say this must be weighing heavily on Barnier's mind now.....is he negotiating with a bunch of liars and spivs and would the trade deal not even be worth the paper it's written on?
So, yeah. Barnier may not break off the talks, but he'll be making it unambiguously clear in those talks that there will be no FTA unless the UK publicly recommits to full implementation of the WA in all its parts and in all circumstances, and drops any plans for inconsistent domestic legislation.0 -
Advertisement
-
It seems they've done enough to have their base accept things though: I've read the talking points about "WA was based on the implied condition subsequent that an FTA would be agreed/that EU would negotiate in good faith (and we brexiters say they have not)" etc.It's an extraordinary state of affairs. They're not even attempting to hide that they've gone rogue and are not to be trusted.
Although personally I think that "the WA was agreed based on the premise that the UK would act in good faith - since we never have, it doesn't apply" would be a defensible argument.
A troubling issue with this is that it does show the UK government is untrustworthy so that there can be no fudging in an FTA. That makes an FTA significantly less likely - so hard to see how this can be rescued now even with a UK climbdown.
A question for Peregrinus etc: (aside from not agreeing an FTA or retaliating/escalating), can the EU sue for damages through arbitration? To me, rather than escalating in a way which encouraged a hard border/feeds into the Brexiter narratives, if I were on the EU side, I'd issue a few diplomatic warnings for a year or two - then escalate into arbitration (avoiding ECJ as much as possible - to avoid Brexiter talking points) and recover damages there if that were open (I suppose an issue exists as to how much damage is suffered by EU and how much suffered by those without locus standi). But this allows the other aspects on a no deal Brexit to hit the UK first, robs the UK government of the immediate talking/focus point of a dispute on Northern Ireland/sovereignty etc0 -
It’s not a talking point that will be repeated by any but the terminally stupid or the utterly debased. Anyone who was alive and sentient at any point between 2106 and 2020 will recall that the whole point of the NI Protocol that the UK now proposes to breach was to address the possiblity that there would not be an FTA (or that there would be an FTA whose terms were not sufficient in themselves to avoid a hard border in Ireland). The notion that it was an “implied condition” that there would be an FTA makes absolutely literally zero sense at all.It seems they've done enough to have their base accept things though: I've read the talking points about "WA was based on the implied condition subsequent that an FTA would be agreed/that EU would negotiate in good faith (and we brexiters say they have not)" etc.
Nope. The WA is a valid and binding international treaty. There are no grounds for arguing that it is not. The EU has zero interest in arguing that it is not and a compelling interest in not making that argument.Although personally I think that "the WA was agreed based on the premise that the UK would act in good faith - since we never have, it doesn't apply" would be a defensible argument.
Good point, but I wouldn’t be quite so gloomy as you. I think if the UK climbs down and recommits to the WA there can be an FTA (if, of course, the UK is also willing to sign up to FTA terms that the EU wants to sign up to). But those are big "ifs" and, from where we stand right now, I think the odds are against an FTA.A troubling issue with this is that it does show the UK government is untrustworthy so that there can be no fudging in an FTA. That makes an FTA significantly less likely - so hard to see how this can be rescued now even with a UK climbdown.
Can the EU sue for damages through arbitration? Yes, in a sense, I think so. As I see it, it works like this:A question for Peregrinus etc: (aside from not agreeing an FTA or retaliating/escalating), can the EU sue for damages through arbitration?
1. UK’s position - as of today, anyway - seems to be that they are not wholly repudiating the WA; they are just violating it “in a limited and specific way” and, except as so violated, it still applies and they will comply with it.
2. If so, unless the UK legislation purports to set aside the provisions of the WA that provide for dispute resolution (and we have had no hint to suggest that it will do this) the dispute resolution process still operates and the UK will participate in it. So the EU can invoke the dispute resolution process to complain that the UK is in breach of particular provisions of the WA.
3. From memory, the dispute resolution process involves the dispute being put to the Joint Committee, who will rule on whether the UK are in breach and, if so, what they have to do to remedy the breach. The Joint Committee (which already exists) consists of equal numbers of representatives from the EU and the UK, and two co-chairs, one appointed by each party. (The UK co-chair is Michael Gove; the EU co-chair is Maroš Šefčovič, who is a member of the European Commission.)
4. If the Joint Committee can't resolve the dispute they refer it to an arbitration panel of five members, to be agreed between the EU and the UK. If the EU and the UK can't agree on the five members, then the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague nominates the members of the panel.
5. The panel first asks itself if the dispute involves any questions of EU law. if it does, the panel refers those questions to the ECJ, who rules on them. The ECJ ruling is binding on the panel (and on the UK and the EU). The panel then resolves the dispute in light of the legal position as determined by the ECJ. If the dispute doesn't raise questions of EU law then the panel moves straigh on to trying to resolve it.
6. If the panel's resultion is acceptable to both the EU and the UK, the dispute is resolved. If it's not, then the dispute gets kicked upstairs to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which makes a ruling, which is binding on both parties.
7. If the UK is found to be in breach of the treaty (whether by the Joint Committee, the Arbitration Panel or the Court of Arbitration) then, at minimum, there will be a ruling that says “stop breaching the treaty!”. But the ruling could also order that the UK must pay compensation for the consequences of the breach up to that point. Whether the EU would seek that, and whether the ruling would say it, and how much would be ordered to be paid, depends on facts which we don’t yet know, like how exactly the UK breach plays out, how long it lasts, what impact it has, etc, etc. But the possibility is certainly there. So, yeah, there could be an award of damages.
8. All this could take many months - international dispute resolution processes tend not to be rapid. A no-deal end to transition would certainly have happened long before there was a final and binding ruling.
9. At this point, the UK either has to eat humble pie and do as it's told, or openly repudiate the WA in full. Repudiation would be a huge, huge deal, with disastrous results for the EU/UK relationship, and considerable implications for the reputation of the UK as a trustworthy international actor. It beggars belief that the UK would take it to that extreme, but during the Brexit process the UK has already done several things that beggar belief, so never say never.
10. If they do repudiate the WA, that would be a clear breach of their obligations to the EU, for which the EU would be entitled to seek a remedy. Obviously in that situation the dispute resolution processes of the WA would cease to function, because the UK would not participate in them or to accept their outcome, so the EU would have to explore other avenues. These are likely to take the form of trade barriers or sanctions of one kind or another. But this could be tricky, since the EU would want to avoid trade barriers that might harden the border in Ireland. So a bit of thought would have to go into how best to respond to the UK.
I don’t think the EU can wait a year or two. Once the UK does something that even it admits is a violation of the WA the EU pretty well has to act, since otherwise they could be seen as condoning/tacitly assenting to the UK’s position, and so jeopardise their entitlement subsequently to object to it. So I think they have to start the dispute resolution process rolling.To me, rather than escalating in a way which encouraged a hard border/feeds into the Brexiter narratives, if I were on the EU side, I'd issue a few diplomatic warnings for a year or two - then escalate into arbitration (avoiding ECJ as much as possible - to avoid Brexiter talking points) and recover damages there if that were open (I suppose an issue exists as to how much damage is suffered by EU and how much suffered by those without locus standi).
But this allows the other aspects on a no deal Brexit to hit the UK first, robs the UK government of the immediate talking/focus point of a dispute on Northern Ireland/sovereignty etc
But, having started it rolling, they don’t have to drive it forward all that vigorously. As pointed out above, these things are generally slow and, if it felt that to be to its advantage, the EU could probably try to make then slower, so that the final stage outlined above, the application of sanctions, wouldn’t happen until well into no-deal pain. (For the same reason the UK might try to hurry the proceedings along, reckoning that if matters are to be brought to a head, the sooner that happens the better. The UK could accelerate matters by, for example, accepting an adverse finding from the Joint Committee or the Arbitration Panel, and opting not to appeal further.)0 -
Emerged today that Johnson told the ERG to ratify the WA last January, as he could renege on it at any point in future....he told them he didn't consider it binding.
Do you have a link to this? I didn't keep up yesterday so haven't seen this reported or my bubble on twitter didn't post about it.:)johnnyskeleton wrote: »I thought Emily Maitlis did an excellent job putting him pin to collar. Asking that question "do you think the court of public opinion is more important than the law" twice and getting mealy mouthed answers is good journalism. It's a pity she ran out of time.
As regards the raining analogy, I don't think it necessarily applies as the majority view in the UK, whether we like it or not, is that Brexit is happening. It isn't exactly a fringe view, nor is leaving with no deal and tearing up agreements a fringe view. In fact, you could say that almost by definition, having someone who is prepared to stand over the decision of the Prime Minister/Government can never be a espousing a view that isn't worth interrogating and can simply be ignored.
So it's great that he was on and was unable to show that there was merit to the UK Govt's proposal.
Here is some of the interview,
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1303456446391164932?s=20
I also think she did well in this clip. She didn't allow him to make a statement and then try and bypass it by droning on about something somewhat related but not to her question, cut him off quickly and moved on. No need to give him time to make another statement that is somewhat related to the topic but not answer the question she asked.
It is fine to give Brexit Party members airtime, but don't give them the time to avoid answering the question and to grandstand. Let their ridiculous position be broadcast.0 -
Do you have a link to this? I didn't keep up yesterday so haven't seen this reported or my bubble on twitter didn't post about it.:)
Here is some of the interview,
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1303456446391164932?s=20
I also think she did well in this clip. She didn't allow him to make a statement and then try and bypass it by droning on about something somewhat related but not to her question, cut him off quickly and moved on. No need to give him time to make another statement that is somewhat related to the topic but not answer the question she asked.
It is fine to give Brexit Party members airtime, but don't give them the time to avoid answering the question and to grandstand. Let their ridiculous position be broadcast.
The last 30 seconds of this clip really sum up Brexit. Habib is nearly foaming at the mouth about 'the court of public opinion.' Actually slightly frightening with his eyes bugging out ranting about the EU weaponizing the NI agreement and all kinds of twaddle, ignoring the obvious question - it doesn't matter when it was signed, or why. It matters that it was.0 -
The last 30 seconds of this clip really sum up Brexit. Habib is nearly foaming at the mouth about 'the court of public opinion.' Actually slightly frightening with his eyes bugging out ranting about the EU weaponizing the NI agreement and all kinds of twaddle, ignoring the obvious question - it doesn't matter when it was signed, or why. It matters that it was.
It does natter why it was signed as the NI protocol originated in the need to respect the GFA, another agreement the British signed.0 -
Bernard Jenkin, prominent eurosceptic Tory MP and (since yesterday) chairman of the ERG, published a piece in the Diplomat magazine (also yesterday) in which he states:Do you have a link to this? I didn't keep up yesterday so haven't seen this reported or my bubble on twitter didn't post about it.:)
"We only have a WA because eurosceptic Conservatives, such as myself, voted for it to help the nation out of a paralysing political crisis. To his credit, the Prime Minister had ameliorated Mrs May’s agreement . . . We made clear, however, that this agreement was barely ‘tolerable’ and only voted for it against assurances given by government: that it was just a starting point for negotiations; that it would be superseded by a full FTA; and, if needs be, could be repudiated."
He doesn't say who gave this assurance on behalf of the government, or when. But, logically, it must have been between the time that Johnson agreed the WA (17 October 2019) and the first time the Commons voted to approve it (which I think was 19 December 2019).0 -
Charles Babbage wrote: »It does natter why it was signed as the NI protocol originated in the need to respect the GFA, another agreement the British signed.
It's just another 'Britannia waives the rules' moment. The NI nonsense Habib spouted was just that. It's signed. Get over yourselves. Brexiteers won't shut up until they've delivered massive pain to the UK.0 -
I find it a bit disturbing to see posts point out that they - the British people - voted for this and that they deserve all they get. They didn't all vote for this, yet they will all suffer the consequences.
Our own Dark Horse didn't vote for this, I'm sure, but his life will probably be changed for the worse because of it. My daughter and son-in-law north of London didn't vote for this and are worried what the future will bring.
As an aside, the father of my son-in-law is a typical Brexiter. According to him it's no problem if the UK breaks up over this, England doesn't need them. In fact England is sick of them riding their coat tails, and NI is costing him a fortune. He has no problem with going to WTO rules as he bleats "at least they're fair, not like the EU" This from a well educated man. :rolleyes:0 -
Thread on the state of play ahead of the publication of the bill today,
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1303598972595040256?s=20
Thread reader
I want to highlight 4 tweets about what is happening,The Protocol says that the Joint Commitee will determine which goods going from GB to NI are "at risk" (and so must attract tarrifs)..but if NO agreement is reached, then the default is that ALL goods are at risk. /4
The UK government says it will put clauses (in the autumn Finance Bill) that will allow UK Ministers to define what is "at risk". You can see that that is *directly contradictory* to what the previous deal said /5
UK officials say this is just "clearing up inadvertent defaults" - which is bad joke.
This default is NOT "inadvertent". Indeed EU officials were drawing my attention to in January. It was/is intentional. To protect the all-ireland economy and Ireland place in single market./6
The deal is equally clear (and UK risk assessments said this at the time) that Export Summary Declarations would be required on goods going NI-GB. Ministers want to over-rule this in a 'no deal' too. Again *directly contradicting* the deal. /7
So if the clauses are as reported, then the UK is trying to rewrite what the NI Protocol states. They alone will determine what goods are classed as "at risk" for tariffs. This will be for the Joint Committee to decide with a FTA and if there is no FTA then all goods are classed as "at risk".
Same for documentation that will be required. They want to seemingly decide on their own to get rid of required documents in the deal they signed. It is going to be a fun day today.0 -
Advertisement
-
As a collective, they've had over 4 years to come to their senses. Howsoever they chose and managed.Silent Running wrote: »I find it a bit disturbing to see posts point out that they - the British people - voted for this and that they deserve all they get. They didn't all vote for this, yet they will all suffer the consequences.
Our own Dark Horse didn't vote for this, I'm sure, but his life will probably be changed for the worse because of it. My daughter and son-in-law north of London didn't vote for this and are worried what the future will bring.
As an aside, the father of my son-in-law is a typical Brexiter. According to him it's no problem if the UK breaks up over this, England doesn't need them[HTML][/HTML]. In fact England is sick of them riding their coat tails, and NI is costing him a fortune. He has no problem with going to WTO rules as he bleats "at least they're fair, not like the EU" This from a well educated man. :rolleyes:
So as a collective, what have they done? Asked for seconds with every election since.
My wife is British. My kid is half-British. My mother-in-law and just about every relation and friend (most degree-educated) we have in the UK voted Leave - and Conservative.
So let them enjoy the governance they deserve. Or finally get off their collective ar5e and help themselves cleaning these augean stables that are their political system.
In the meantime, let them eat sovereignty...but feel free to send the odd food parcel to improve your daughter's family's diet. We certainly plan to do so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement