Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:08 AM

An Irish view:
As somebody said, regarding the British Brexit negotiating team: if the British had the same team negotiating with us in 1922, we'd not only still have the 6 counties, but Wales too.

Sadly they are probably right. When you have a remainer leading the negotiations for departure...........?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:30 AM

LABOUR SITUATION HERE
Not so much a split, but an open debate
Chissum represents the new Left that have now taken control of the Party, while Flint represents the right-wing New Labour old Guard
Personally, I think Corbyn has boxed clever (at least I hope what is happening is deliberate)
They have avoided any major in-fighting by steering clear of the melee and have allowed the Tories to self-destruct (as displayed here by our own little band of right wing brothers)
Whatever happens, the Tories have torn themselves into shreds without the help of the Labour Party - all their own self-destructive work.
Any intervention by the Labour Party might well have caused the Tories to close ranks against the common enemy
If it was deliberate, it is brilliant and has shown Corbyn to be a great tactician, if it wasn't - it was sheer good luck
To say that the Tory Party will never be the same again is to put it mildly - they are really shitting on their own doorstep
At least there is an open debate within Labour whether to hold a second referendum - it hasn't even been considered by the Tories
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:39 AM

Still not getting any satisfactory response on the question of why the fact that the Germans sell more to us than we sell to them means that we have a strong hand in negotiating with the EU.

Nobody is going to ban German goods from entering the UK. They are not going to lose their market if we come out of the EU, are they?

Not only that, but it seems that Germany is the 2nd on the list of countries we export to. Looked at like that, it seems that if we do 'lose' the abilitity to export to Germany, we will be losing our 2nd largest market. Size isn't everything, is it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:24 AM

I have still not had anyone answer the question of why importing more from a country than we export to it is a bad thing. We get lots of good stuff from Germany. In return, all we have to give them is money, which we have. With the USA it's the opposite. Mostly because they do not produce stuff which we want and need. If we do not have a good trading relationship with the EU, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the range of goods available in our shops and supermarkets will be vastly reduced, to our detriment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:36 AM

"Any intervention by the Labour Party might well have caused the Tories to close ranks against the common enemy"

That is spot-on and is why Labour have yet to bring a motion of no confidence in the government. It would unite the Tories and, given that the DUP have yet to jump ship, the motion would fail and the Tories would be secure. That situation could change if May can't persuade the DUP to accept her deal, which I'm sure they won't in its current form. It would, however, be good to have a better idea of Labour's honest position in all this. We are definitely not hearing enough from Jezza.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 09:16 AM

I see that David. But the argument has been put and I am still struggling to see why people regard it as a good argument. Also,
in the face of a 'hard Brexit' those pro Brexit people argue that WTO terms would kick in so trade would continue.


There are some big issues about the sort of terms the USA would want to impose as I understand it. This applies also to the TTIP that was being negotiated betweern the USA and the EU, which was an argument in favour of coming out of the EU. You guessed it, the USA wants less environmental protection, etc. ALso I read that there are moves to make trade agreements with the USA actually secret, so how that figures with democratic accountability and taking back control I cannot see. The whole thing is also seen as a threat to European Social Models.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 09:24 AM

"It would, however, be good to have a better idea of Labour's honest position in all this.
Not sure that is either possible or necessary Steve - if the elected Majority is not going to listen to each other they're not going to listen to anybody else
Let them dig their own graves and bury their own dismembered corpse, nobody else could make a better job of it than they are

A manipulated referendum got Britain into this mess, it will take another, based on real information to get her out if it
Interesting to listen to Liam Fox rejecting a second referendum today - you can bet that once they start doing that, it's a possibility
Fox said he was against a second referendum because "it would divide the country" !!!!!
You couldn't make this crows up if you were writing a script for 'Spitting Image"
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 10:26 AM

And if 'no deal' is so simple, why is Liam Fox (according to Daily Mail) preparing to spend 100 million on trade negotiators if this happens?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 10:55 AM

Because, Karen, the simple no deal with Europe and ease of trade with other states is yet another lie that the brexit team have been caught out in.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 12:11 PM

"Britain may have lost the right to claim Americans are dumber, but the US clearly has no right to feel any political superiority. Indeed, it feels as if certain parts of American society now feel a sort of exhausted solidarity with the UK, a relief that they are not the only ones whose country is a raging dumpster fire.

A new sort of special relationship has been forged between the UK and the US; we are united by the fact that we have become global jokes."

Check It Out:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/when-americans-want-to-understand-brexit-its-clear-britain-is-in-trouble

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 01:47 PM

Yes I know, Jim, but the "lack of clarity" as perceived and as whipped up by the tabloids is in danger of working against Labour. "The Tories might have screwed things up but Labour is not giving us a viable alternative." I get it, you get it but it's all too easy an argument to make.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 02:31 PM

Spot on there with Portugal, Nigs. I was just testing you. And, let's face it, getting you to check all the little piddly details does keep you off the streets.

I was also right about the fact that you are unable to ever admit that you're wrong. "I was just testing you".
No, you screwed up!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 02:42 PM

From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 04:38 PM
You may recall Iains that the Nationalists boycotted the 1973 referendum as only unionists voted.
Thus if 100 people voted and 98% voted to remain you arrive at your figure (appromimately Nigel!)
The result was meaningless.

The referendum was decisive. 98.9% of those voting decided to remain part of UK.
The votes of those who chose not to vote cannot be accurately counted for either side of the vote.
However, if, as you say, "Nationalists boycotted the vote" then even if they were the only ones who didn't vote (unlikely), and you attribute all of their votes as being against remaining part of the UK, of those who voted 98.9% voted to remain as part of the UK. If you include all those who didn't vote, on a 58.7% turnout, 98.9% of the 58.7% would still give a vote for remaining part of the UK of just over 58% of the total electorate. So the fact that Nationalists boycotted the vote had no meaningful effect.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 02:49 PM

mean while the EU is intending to penalise british holidaymakers after 2021
British tourists wanting to visit Europe after Brexit face a €7 fee and an online application process after the UK government outlined new immigration rules yesterday.

Under a plan announced by Theresa May at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, Europeans wanting to visit Britain on holiday would have to submit to security and criminal records checks before they arrive in the country.

Sources in Europe told The Times that this would automatically result in British citizens having to participate in the European Union’s new travel authorisation system, which is due to come into effect in 2021.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:01 PM

V2
You've had the reasons for that vote - fully documented
You may add to that that the referendum was held at a time when the state was at war with Britain
All academic anyway - the situation at the present time is there is around a 25%difference between those who want Irish unity and those who don't, despite the fact that the Unionists still make up the majority of te population - the massive leap is indicative that the time for ending partition is well past its sell-by date
Partitioning countries is the legacy of a (thankfully dead) system
NO COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTITION ANOTHER
The hint is in the name IRELAND
Are you really defending this practice, or this more of your nit-picking ?
Brexit has more-or-less rung the death toll on the partition - and quite possinbly The 'United' kingdom as a whole
Jeez - the Empire has never died in the the minds of the Little Englanders
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:11 PM

"You may add to that that the referendum was held at a time when the state was at war with Britain."

What state and what war was that then? Pray enlighten us all!
Is this another story that starts Once upon a time?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM

Well you're wrong about everything all the time, Niggler, but I don't go on about it.

Mind you, I am tempted...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:25 PM

One of the most dishonest claims made by what is still referred to as "the government", though it has ceased to be an effective government, is that Theresa May is seeking "clarifications" about the withdrawal agreement. In reality what she is seeking is to find some form of words which might enable her to obscure and fudge the meaning of that agreement.

After the experience with the agreed backstop which was negotiated a year ago in order to enable negotiations to proceed, it is highly unlikely that the EU will agree to any such pseudo-"clarification". In the case of the backstop agreement the UK reinterpreted it, and misinterpreted it, so as to provide a cover for an attempt to back out of what they had agreed a year later.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:46 PM

The past:
I just watched a very sympathetic documentary about the life of Sir Winston Churchill. Even in his era, they were talking in the U.K. about a "United States of Europe" (U.S.E.) I think the European Union is what they got. It wasn't perfect but the main goal of no more world wars out of Europe was achieved. That and NATO are not small potatoes.

The present:
I think a multiple choice referendum is the best way out for the current UK:

1)BREXIT MAY - Accept the terms as promulgated by EU and Theresa May.
2)Cold BREXIT. Leave now and negotiate after.
3)Abandon BREXIT entirely (BREXIT EXIT) as thought the first referendum had gone the other way AND make it a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for any future single choice referendum to leave.(assuming the EU will have you).

Those are the clear seamless choices UK has because the EU has laid down the law. They've done you a favor and kept it simple.

Since this is multiple choice you have to determine if it will be a simple majority win situation or you want to have a minimum percentage of electorate on the winning selection. But that is simple enough for anyone to understand and gets the political 'leaders' out of the loop since they seem to be bogged down by the situation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:04 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM
Well you're wrong about everything all the time, Niggler, but I don't go on about it.
Mind you, I am tempted...

Once again, shown to be wrong, cannot accept it, reduced to insult and name calling.

Maybe I should start misusing his name (as he does mine) and calling him "Steve Shat" after all, he posts a load of crap!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:08 PM

Of the options 1, 2 or 3 I prefer 2. Cold Brexit. Leave now, negotiate later. This would give us, the UK, the strongest hand.

Option 1. Brerxit May leaves the UK with a weaker bargaining hand but attempts to placify those people who don't want to leave the EU in ther first place.

Option 3 is a betrayal of the referendum. Any party that enforced option 3 would be political toast for the next 30 years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:09 PM

I got his number eons ago Nigel, glad to see you coming around.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:40 PM

Another referendum is no more a "betrayal of the referendum" than the 2016 referendum was a betrayal of the 1975 referendum. If we have another referendum, all those people who voted leave can still vote leave, and they'll get what they want. What are you afraid of? That a few of your leave compatriots will have changed their minds in the light of all the new information we now have and swing the vote? Give over! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:45 PM

After the experience with the agreed backstop which was negotiated a year ago in order to enable negotiations to proceed, it is highly unlikely that the EU will agree to any such pseudo-"clarification". In the case of the backstop agreement the UK reinterpreted it, and misinterpreted it, so as to provide a cover for an attempt to back out of what they had agreed a year later.

We have not yet reached an agreement on how Brexit will be effected. Anything which has been suggested so far is a negotiating position, and can still be changed. This is the EU position. "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
By delaying discussing future trade the EU are ignoring their own guidelines. 'Brexiteers' may not find this surprising.

I have quoted the guidelines before, but people (usually remainers) insist on ignoring them in this discussion.
Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately. The Union will approach the negotiations with unified positions, and will engage with the United Kingdom exclusively through the channels set out in these guidelines and in the negotiating directives. So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union.
3. The core principles set out above should apply equally to the negotiations on an orderly withdrawal, to any preliminary and preparatory discussions on the framework for a future relationship, and to any form of transitional arrangements.
From the EU's own guidelines : Here

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:51 PM

Stanron. I really appreciate your answer. It means to me that it is far better to submit the UK to a referendum because should it go No. 3 the population has to take the blame independent of any party.

Once the referendum was over with the public could vote for the 'responsible' parties to administer it.

I think putting such a complicated decision to a deceptively simple vote and a simple majority rule was not a particularly salutary way to go BUT now we've got a much better idea of where we're going and a referenfum is the way to get past the fallout of the first referendum.

Again, the EU has been kind and presented you with a straightforward choice.

It's the clearest path forward. The cherry on top would be if Trump tweets against it. That would be the ultimate recommendation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:05 PM

"Leave now, negotiate later."

Wow, don't you just LOVE the little Englander hubris here? Negotiate what? With whom? From what position of strength, like wot we 'ave not got? We piss the EU off, the EU wot is eight times bigger than us, and depend on deals that'll take years to seal with countries that aren't interested in us and don't need us, and you think that all that'll be better than wot we 'ave now?   Pie in the sky! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:09 PM

3)Abandon BREXIT entirely (BREXIT EXIT) as though the first referendum had gone the other way AND make it a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for any future single choice referendum to leave.(assuming the EU will have you).

The second part of that would be impossible. A future parliament could always repeal any legislation that attempted to bind it in that way. Parliament always has the right to repeal or reverse any legislation, it's a fundamental part of our democracy.

I still haven't heard any justification for the assertion that a referendum at this time, giving a second chance to the people to decide what should happen, would be "a betrayal of democracy", with its implication that Ireland and Denmark betrayed democracy in similar circumstances in giving its electorate a opportunity of thinking again, and that those countries are less committed to democracy than this one is.

Actually the principle that is involved is the same as that in the previous paragraph. Just as parliament cannot bind itself in its future action, nor can the voters. That's why we can vote the other way in any election - and a referendum is really just a different kind of election.

The argument that if the decision in a fresh referendum was to remain, the minority who had voted for Brexit would call for a third one, doesn't stand up to critical examination. Yes, of course they might, and they'd have every right to do so. That's what those calling for us to leave the EU had been doing for years, calling for a vote to reverse the previous referendum which had confirmed our membership of what was then the Common Market. And, as with the 2016 referendum, those who had won would do everything they could to stop that dream and being successful. All part of our imperfect democratic process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:13 PM

The EU is not "delaying discussions on future trade," Nigel, much as you'd like that to be the case. And you really ought to bone up on the backstop. You seem to not get it at all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 03:54 AM

Perhaps if those advocating Britain having "the strongest hand" explained what that "strongest hand" was, it might help
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:14 AM

>

Steve Shaw wrote: Wow, don't you just LOVE the little Englander hubris here? Negotiate what? With whom? From what position of strength, like wot we 'ave not got? We piss the EU off, the EU wot is eight times bigger than us, and depend on deals that'll take years to seal with countries that aren't interested in us and don't need us, and you think that all that'll be better than wot we 'ave now?   Pie in the sky! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Once again the "Little Englader" sneer. Is that the best you've got? It's not very good. Obviously I don't expect an ultra communist lefty to understand this but the arguement is based on something called the 'profit motive'.

When the Germans sell us a car it costs them, let's say, X amount of money to produce and they sell it to us for X plus a little bit. Actually it's more likely to be X plus quite a big bit. That big, or little bit is their profit. They use that profit to employ a workforce, maintain their infrastructure, buy supplies and pay their taxes. After all that there should be a surplus, some of which will be a return to investors.

OK, the day after a No Deal Brexit. Is the EU going to say to the UK "We will no longer sell you our BMWs and Mercs. Take that!"

If they do, the result will be that they will have less moeny, because we have not bought their cars, and we will have more money, because we have not bought their cars. Who hurts more? Who has the better bargaining position?

I honestly don't expect you to get it. Apparently the left thinks that all money grows on trees and you just pluck it when you want it. Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:45 AM

They are eight times bigger than us. They'll manage without us. You should have listened to Start The Week this morning. All round the world, people are scratching their heads as to why a little country should be cutting itself adrift. The world is dominated by big hitters such as Russia, China, the US and India. We are making ourselves into small fry. They don't particularly need us as trading partners and will call the shots in any trade deals we try to achieve. At the same time, trade with the EU will tougher. Our economy, on every available forecast, will shrink. But you brexiteers are fine with all that. You call it "taking back control."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:49 AM

This ultra-communist leftie owns a big house in the country (lovely sea views) outright, has a huge garden and has two cars in the capacious driveway, one of them a sports car. Is there a bottle of Prosecco chilling, dear?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:55 AM

Trying to discuss the finer points of finance with the left is as futile as discussing astrophysics with a lamprey.They even share similar traits. The left largely leech off the public teat therefore have no concept as to how money is generated, only how to squander it. Just look at the state of the economy after a hard left administration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:49 AM ..........

I wonder why he feels a need to boast all the time? Must be insecurity!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 05:39 AM

""We will no longer sell you our BMWs and Mercs. Take that!""
How about if they decide to send home all the Brits working there - maybe the unemployed 36,000 will find jobs stacking shelves in Sainsburys to keep Britain's employment figures up
Take that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:11 AM

Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials. Don't forget to buy the 30-day dry-hung sirloins at Waitrose this morning, dear (actually true! Only cos it's our anniversary tomorrow...)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:27 AM

"Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials"
Don't rise to this brained insecuro - he only comes here because nobody else wants to have anything to do with him and he can abuse away to his hearts content from the shadows of anonymity without fear of retribution
He's little more than a cyberstalker
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:27 AM

"Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials"
Don't rise to this brained insecuro - he only comes here because nobody else wants to have anything to do with him and he can abuse away to his hearts content from the shadows of anonymity without fear of retribution
He's little more than a cyberstalker
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:28 AM

Congratulations. Enjoy your meal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Stanron's post makes no sense to me. For I do not know anybody who imagines that the Germans are planning to refuse to sell BMWs to people in GB after Brexit. The idea is ridiculous.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:55 AM

On the contrary, we have voted to some out of a system where BMWs can be sold from the EU to GB without trade tariffs. Looking at one of Trump's ideas, we could think about putting a 20% tariff on cars imported from Germany.

The other question would be about GB based manufacturing owned by BMW. Take the Mini, for example.

I cannot find a more up to date source at short notice, but in 2016 the Independent newspaper reported that SIX British-based companies owned by BMW, including at the time Rolls Royce warned of British job losses in the event of tariffs being introduced after Brexit.

The same article stated that

For BMW Group, more than half of Minis built and virtually all the engines and components made in the UK are exported to the EU, with over 150,000 new cars and many hundreds of thousands of parts imported from Europe each year

This isn't the ravings of some commie, it is from the mouths of industry executives and managers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:58 AM

How about if they decide to send home all the Brits working there - maybe the unemployed 36,000 will find jobs stacking shelves in Sainsburys to keep Britain's employment figures up
Take that
Jim Carroll

Ho Hum! More nonsense. Below, the facts.

1.3 million people born in the UK live in other EU countries
Around 3.8 million people living in the UK in 2017 were citizens of another EU country. That's about 6% of the UK population.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:00 AM

Let's take Rolls Royce. It was on the radio this week that the team who get approval for engine designs is leaving GB for the EU because only teams based in the EU can approve engines for flying. Ironically, the Telegraph discussed plans to do this by referring to the iconic British brand, but guess who owns Rolls Royce? BMW. ANd before that Volkswagon owned it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:14 AM

Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. Brexit isn't going to alter that, unless we follow Jim's logic and cut Ireland as a whole off completely.   We should maybe get rid of the dual Irish GB passport business as well because I for one resent the fact that people with Irish ancestors will still get UE passports whereas I won't be able to. Not fair. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:36 AM

Well, glad to see some of the 2 billion put aside for No Deal preparations is going on ensuring we can continue to import the chemicals needed for clean water from the EU. This issue was well rehearsed in the run up to the referendum, and we all voted in the knowledge that clean water was dependent on EU chemicals.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1059650/brexit-news-philip-hammond-no-deal-money-preparations-theresa-may-eu

Awaiting Stanron's comments about how much more they will lose y not selling us their water purifying chemicals than we will lose by not selling them ours. :)

I like having Europeans living in GB. Variety is the spice of life.

Giving up Brexit pondering for Xmas. Speak in the new year.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:59 AM

The UN estimate for 2016 suggests just over 500,000 Irish in the UK and around 10% of the UK population are able to claim Irish citizenship by virtue of having at least one Irish grandparent. Britain and Ireland have allowed unfettered travel and residence under the CTA long before the EU was even dreamed of.

Citizens of Ireland and the United Kingdom living in each other’s countries will not have to apply for residency rights to protect existing social and travel entitlements, the foreign office in London has confirmed.

The agreement reached in Brussels earlier this month(Dec.2017) “means the rights of Irish and British citizens under the Common Travel Area (CTA) are protected after the UK leaves the EU”, the foreign office declared.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:05 AM

A couple of memorable quotes from grandstanding bliar blair:

   “If the British people vote no, they vote no. You can’t then start bringing it back until they vote yes.”

    “If the British people vote no in this referendum, that is their verdict. That is absolutely clear.”

How best to remind him I ask myself?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:08 AM

Also, I disagree that the 'partition' of Ireland was really one 'country' partitioning another; it was the UK divesting itself of a bit. Different thing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:24 AM

we all voted in the knowledge that clean water was dependent on EU chemicals.

Yeah right! Project fear in top gear. (Unstable chemicals?volatile? did they bother to check with a chemist?)


http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6892/michael_gove_from_brexit_hero_to_political_clown

and from Gaia Fawkes

https://order-order.com/2018/11/26/dehydrated-zombie-brexit/


I do recommend guido's comments. Very pithy!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:27 AM

"Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. "
Ireland doesn't count in these figures - the Treaty established a 'special relationship' between the U.K. and the Republic which has no effect whatever on what happens with Brexit
Britain would lose hands down any 'sending home' pissing competition - Any European looking for work in Borderless Europe has a far greater choice of work than British returnees forced to come home would have
Britain is in the pretty unique situation where it is now possible to be in work while, at the same time living in poverty - nice thing to be able to offer returning Brits

Over 14 million people, about one in five of the UK population are in poverty, according to the Joseph Rountree Foundation. Of them 8.2 million are working-age adults, 4.1 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Eight million people live in poverty in families where at least one person is working.

"Ho Hum! More nonsense."
It is getting beyond a joke that this feller can continue to abuse and insult the way he does without being checked by the mods - at least two of his mates have had their arses kicked off this forum for lesser serious behaviour
I really thought they had scraped rock bottom last week with the thread they got closed - apparently not
How long Lord - how long!!
Jim Carroll