Brexit negotiations

[Mr D]

It's the smartest move, considering the circumstances.

This assumes, of course, that the deal agreed yesterday will be accepted. It's stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. Ardent brexiteers will reject it because they want a hard brexit, and many remainers will reject it because they want the UK to stay inside the single market and customs union.

Then we have the question of what the EU thinks. Time will tell.

Yes, getting cabinet to agree doesn't mean the other side will agree or even the rest of the Conservative party will agree.
Then of course there's getting whatever is agreed through parliament. Can you see a few problems there when this particular vision of Brexit goes against the few hundred other visions of Brexit?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44752273

Theresa May has refused to rule out making it easier for EU citizens to come to the UK after Brexit than it is for people from elsewhere in the world.

Brexiteers may baulk at this, but it's fairly logical.

There are aspects of visa liberalisation in any free trade agreement. With the four main elements of trade - goods, services, labour and capital - it's expected that the movement of labour is freed up alongside the other three as part of such an agreement.

Therefore, if the UK expects a "special deal" that goes beyond an ordinary trade agreement, it can also expect a greater degree of liberalisation in all four areas too.

As I've said from day one, no country can expect to receive easier access to another country's markets while rejecting that country's citizens. Not only is it illogical, but offensive as well. The UK could come out of this with a reasonably good deal, but it needs to drop the idea of getting highly favourable trading arrangements while reducing labour movement.

It's not over yet, of course. The UK's expectations still need to be realistic. We will not get a trading arrangement that's anywhere near as good as the single market without complete freedom of movement. If we want to limit this movement, then trade will be limited too.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I see that David Davies, the minister who failed to get anywhere near a deal in 2 years, has resigned. Probably because he realises he couldn't get the latest idea through either.

How many hours is it that he has spent at the negotiating table this year? Less than a week's worth!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I see that David Davies, the minister who failed to get anywhere near a deal in 2 years, has resigned. Probably because he realises he couldn't get the latest idea through either.

How many hours is it that he has spent at the negotiating table this year? Less than a week's worth!

I still don't get Davis' point about all this. He claims the latest plan is "giving away too much" during negotiations.

He always goes on about negotiating positions, but with such little time left, his plan seems to involve playing hardball until the deadline looms so close that the EU blinks first.

That's extremely dangerous with a fairly low probability of success.

May's plan certainly isn't as good as staying in the EU, economically speaking, but I find the uproar over the proposal a bit baffling. Yes, we're "giving away" a lot, but it's to receive a lot in return. The EU is the second largest economy in the world, it represents half our international trade, and it consists of all our neighbours which we are deeply intertwined with in many areas.

Regional trade blocs exist all over the world. It makes perfect sense to cosy up to your neighbours where trade is so much easier. I really don't understand the idea of drastically cutting back this relationship to spawn new ones with countries on the other side of the world.

Has anyone ever wondered why, despite Australia's close cultural relationship with us, they are only our 27th largest trading partner? It's not because of a trade deal or lack thereof. It's because it's very hard to do trade in goods or services with a country that's over 10,000 miles away.

And when it's 9am-5pm in the UK, it's 6pm-2am in Canberra, so services are a struggle too. No amount of tariff reductions can change that.

Then we seem to think we can march on with trade agreements with the likes of China and the US, which are notoriously protectionist. Combine that with our desperate need to replace EU trade with non-EU trade, and we're not in a strong position at all.

I think we'd be very wise to nurture what we've got before we risk throwing it away to go gallivanting around.

 

[Gecko001]

Barnier's deputy was on the radio this morning reminding the UK of the EU's Single Market's four pillars of freedom: freedom of movement for, goods, services, capital and people. It seems like the negotiations will not move much until just before we leave.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Has anyone ever wondered why, despite Australia's close cultural relationship with us, they are only our 27th largest trading partner? It's not because of a trade deal or lack thereof. It's because it's very hard to do trade in goods or services with a country that's over 10,000 miles away.

And when it's 9am-5pm in the UK, it's 6pm-2am in Canberra, so services are a struggle too. No amount of tariff reductions can change that.

I've worked for Australian clients. The problem of the time difference is huge. If they email in their time zone and I need to get a re-quote from my suppliers they will not be in their office when I email back. What might take a day in the same time zone can take a week when you are never in synch.

Also Australia has lots of other suppliers much closer in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

 

[Newchodge]

Barnier's deputy was on the radio this morning reminding the UK of the EU's Single Market's four pillars of freedom: freedom of movement for, goods, services, capital and people. It seems like the negotiations will not move much until just before we leave.

That is hardly a surprise. Do you really think that we will leave?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Boris is out:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44770847

It seems the cabinet wasn't as unified as first thought.

This may be a blessing or a curse. I feel as though, at this stage, anything drastically different to what May has put forward means we'd be far more likely to crash out without a deal - which would be disastrous. Any major upheaval of the government would increase this risk even more.

And even in the event of a "harder" deal, that would be far more damaging to the UK economy than what May is proposing.

But in terms of the negotiations, the government has often been its own worst enemy. We've spent more time squabbling with ourselves than the EU, so if the cabinet shakes out the most discontented members and unifies behind a goal, we may see better progress now.

I appreciate May's attempt to create a "balanced" cabinet, but that was always going to end badly with anything other than a hard brexit.

Now we just have to wonder whether the disgruntled Tory MPs realise that trying to oust May, with only a few months of feasible negotiating time left, will make "no deal" highly likely with an equally high probability of bringing the Conservatives down at the next general election.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-po...etter&&ns_fee=0#post_5b4396d4f0f2e1066d525476

I don't think I've seen a more obvious acknowledgement that this letter would be made public for the country to read.

This is a letter for MPs and the British public, not Theresa May. It's a parting shot designed to rally the Brexiteers.

I sense that Boris has his eye on a Tory leadership election and getting himself into position in the event that it happens. In fact, his resignation letter smacks of trying to encourage such an election to happen.

It's unusual though that he claims May's plan is an "opening bid" when we've spent almost a year and a half negotiating with only a few months left.

 

[Cobby]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44728807

I think the public has become a bit desensitised to all this, including myself. But when you think about it, it's utterly crazy that it's been two years since the referendum, with only months left before we leave, and those in charge still haven't decided on what Brexit should be.

Every variation of Brexit was promised before the vote, so voters could vote what whatever dream they had. Once they had secured their extremely narrow victory, the ringleaders vanished to the sidelines, wanting no responsibility and offering no ideas - content to simply sneer at whatever was offered.

The simple truth is, the Brexit that Brexiteers claim we all voted for, simply doesn't exist so of course it cannot be agreed upon.

Economic damage will still occur, but that's just part and parcel of leaving the EU. Yes, we'd be better off if we stayed, but we want to leave, so that's that.

Wanted. There's good evidence to suggest people would now vote differently given the same question again, and also to suggest that people would like to have an informed choice between our "Final Deal" and Remaining.

Brexiteers foaming at the mouth to claim that "Another vote is just an attempt to stop Brexit" are explicitly saying that they believe people would vote to stop Brexit given the chance.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I notice there is a real crowd at the Brexit debate in the Commons at the moment.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d28b6c94-200a-4ba3-aa59-2c1d446dd7b3

Probably shows, more than anything that over 600 of our MPs do not want to be associated with an opinion on the issue.

 

[Mr D]

I notice there is a real crowd at the Brexit debate in the Commons at the moment.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d28b6c94-200a-4ba3-aa59-2c1d446dd7b3

Probably shows, more than anything that over 600 of our MPs do not want to be associated with an opinion on the issue.

Or that they have already made their minds up.

 

[Cobby]

I see that David Davies, the minister who failed to get anywhere near a deal in 2 years, has resigned. Probably because he realises he couldn't get the latest idea through either.

How many hours is it that he has spent at the negotiating table this year? Less than a week's worth!

Four hours. A total of four hours.

Famously acknowledging his mediocrity in an interview on LBC, he said "I don't have to be very clever to do my job.", and anyone who watched his appearances before parliament lying about the Brexit impact reports (for which he has yet to face any consequences) will understand how incompetent he was in his post.

That his entire contribution to the negotiations was four measly hours is not a surprise.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-44762836

I don't think I've seen a more obvious acknowledgement that this letter would be made public for the country to read.

This is a letter for MPs and the British public, not Theresa May. It's a parting shot designed to rally the Brexiteers.

I sense that Boris has his eye on a Tory leadership election and getting himself into position in the event that it happens. In fact, his resignation letter smacks of trying to encourage such an election to happen.

Traditionally, cabinet resignation letters are released to the public/press in tandem with the Downing Street's response. What was unusual was Boris' choice to push his letter out in advance and I think you're right: it's a pre-amble possibly for a leadership bid but certainly as fuel for his cause.

However it's also worth noting that Boris' entire political career is built on his ability to craft lies (mostly about the EU) and that his resignation letter is no different. He attempts to jeer up Brexiters (or those wavering) against the EU complaining that the EU directive prohibits safer cabs in large vehicles.

The problem is he's lying (or far less likely, incompetent and doesn't actually know the facts). The EU introduced the draft law in April 2014 but the auto industry itself is responsible for the delay.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30436153

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Four hours. A total of four hours.

Famously acknowledging his mediocrity in an interview on LBC, he said "I don't have to be very clever to do my job.", and anyone who watched his appearances before parliament lying about the Brexit impact reports (for which he has yet to face any consequences) will understand how incompetent he was in his post.

That his entire contribution to the negotiations was four measly hours is not a surprise.

To be fair you have to include travel time, lunches, dinners, tea breaks etc.

His successor has apparently written a book about how lazy the Brits are. His answer is to cut down on benefits and increase the working week

 

[Cobby]

To be fair you have to include travel time, lunches, dinners, tea breaks etc.

His successor has apparently written a book about how lazy the Brits are. His answer is to cut down on benefits and increase the working week

Raab is a "Men's Rights Activist", has labelled feminists as 'bigots', argued to bring back work houses and has spent 10 years trying to dismantle the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, often arguing he's happy to compromise but after 10 years has yet to give any ground.

Like the other mediocre white men he and his ilk are replacing, he's just another example of privilege coupled with a complete lack of human compassion.

 

[Mr D]

To be fair you have to include travel time, lunches, dinners, tea breaks etc.

His successor has apparently written a book about how lazy the Brits are. His answer is to cut down on benefits and increase the working week

One way to improve productivity per person.

 

[Cobby]

One way to improve productivity per person.

Big ol' noppity nope.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44785797

Both have warned they will lose their seats unless the Tories deliver Brexit.

What a lot of MPs don't seem to realise is that no deal, or a hard Brexit, provides far more risk of them losing their seats in the next election.

We'll eventually leave, it won't be a focus of blame any more, and nothing much will change in terms of laws or immigration (at least not for a good few years yet).

Then the attention of the electorate will focus back on what it's always focused on up until a few years ago: healthcare, education, taxes, jobs, public services, wages, austerity and so forth.

Except this time, the economic shock of a hard Brexit (or even worse, no deal) will put considerable pressure on all of these. And when that happens, the politicians in charge will get the blame.

Only the most ardent of Brexiteers will give the government a pass on the responsibility of this because they delivered a hard Brexit and were willing to accept the negative outcome. Others will claim the same thing at first, but their patience will quickly run out when it has an impact on the amount of money in their bank account.

I'm not sure what some Tory MPs expect to happen, either. A deal really needs to be sorted by October or November at the very latest to have enough time for ratification. That's 3/4 months. What is a leadership breakdown going to solve? Are they really rolling the dice on playing hard ball and hoping that the EU blinks first?

And bear in mind that "no deal" is likely to mean no transition period, either. No financial passporting. Nada. We'd fall off a cliff edge in March with nothing in place to be ready for this. If so, it's highly likely that the pound will fall below the value of the euro.

What worries me is I don't think anyone, particularly employers and investors, have ever considered this realistic. All they've spoke about are the dangers of a deal with restricted single market access. Now though, it may be dawning on them that there could be no deal at all.

 

[Mr D]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44785797



What a lot of MPs don't seem to realise is that no deal, or a hard Brexit, provides far more risk of them losing their seats in the next election.

We'll eventually leave, it won't be a focus of blame any more, and nothing much will change in terms of laws or immigration (at least not for a good few years yet).

Yes we will leave in March. Unless something happens that causes us to not leave then.

Cannot as yet see anything changing the date. Perhaps we'll know more by Christmas.

 

[Cobby]

So... criminal investigations for the companies used by Leave campaigns. The campaigns themselves being investigated (mostly the Leave campaigns but also an investigation into the Remain campaign).

It's an absolute car crash of political corruption and would make a fantastic scapegoat for May to change course since it morally if not legally (also possibly legally under the Vienna convention) invalidates the referendum result.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/12/whats-in-the-brexit-white-paper

Details of the white paper are starting to emerge.

What still baffles me when it comes to the hard brexiteers is what their idea is to solve the Irish border issue.

This is actually one of the main drivers behind the facilitated customs arrangement. In truth, this arrangement probably isn't ideal in an economic sense, but it's what's best under the unique circumstances of the border in Ireland, which must remain open.

That creates many complications that a lot of other EU countries wouldn't have if they decided to leave as well. They could lock their entire border up. Easy peasy. We can't, and that's just the reality we have to face.

It's basically the equivalent of Switzerland putting controls around 1000 miles of its 1100 mile border, but leaving 100 miles completely open with no customs officers or checks. How are entirely separate customs areas supposed to operate like that?

The EU, very understandably, doesn't want a gaping hole that can undermine its customs area, and the UK shouldn't either.

 

[Newchodge]

What still baffles me when it comes to the hard brexiteers is what their idea is to solve the Irish border issue.

It's simple. You ignore it. It only affects a small number of businesses, (Bojo) and anyway it's not as if the problem is in England, is it?

 

[Mr D]

It's simple. You ignore it. It only affects a small number of businesses, (Bojo) and anyway it's not as if the problem is in England, is it?

Appears to be multiple governments who choose to not ignore it.

 

[Newchodge]

Appears to be multiple governments who choose to not ignore it.

Sorry, Mr D, that wasn't my view of the issue, I was merely reporting the views of some Brexiteers on how to deal with it. personally, I think it is a massively important issue, that I can't see a resolution for.

 

[Mr D]

Sorry, Mr D, that wasn't my view of the issue, I was merely reporting the views of some Brexiteers on how to deal with it. personally, I think it is a massively important issue, that I can't see a resolution for.

Agree with you about a viable resolution.
Realistically the issue of NI border should have started to be looked at 20+ years ago with work starting (if needed) to fit equipment 5 years ago. Though governments tend to kick into the future stuff that's controversial for decision making or have multiple decisions over years about doing something so could well have been in the same mess now if started 20 years ago.

I'm thinking we should cancel article 50 and start again. Completely afresh.
With article 50 then put forward once solutions are agreed and project on target to be completed in the 2 years of article 50.
As things stand now we have potential for chaos and not much potential for viable solutions implemented in 8 months.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Agree with you about a viable resolution.
Realistically the issue of NI border should have started to be looked at 20+ years ago with work starting (if needed) to fit equipment 5 years ago. Though governments tend to kick into the future stuff that's controversial for decision making or have multiple decisions over years about doing something so could well have been in the same mess now if started 20 years ago.

The problem is that it's very difficult to even fit equipment.

The Irish peace process is a very sensitive issue which depends on an open, seamless border. Putting any form of control on one of the dozens of country roads that would actually work, such as customs officers or even CCTV, would be a step too far for many people that is considered to undermine the Good Friday Agreement.

And then you have the Conservative majority depending on the agreement with the DUP which, as a unionist party, refuses to accept anything that separates Northern Ireland from the UK. That rules out putting a method of customs control between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

It seems the situation in Ireland is already threatening May's grand plan:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...u-irish-border-northern-ireland-a8444616.html

What's increasingly frustrating is that the Brexiteers baulking at a softer brexit don't seem to come close to having a solution for this.

The hard border risk in Ireland isn't just the EU trying to be difficult. Northern Ireland refuses to accept it, the Republic of Ireland refuses to accept it, and the UK has vowed it will never happen either. There's a good chance we'll have no choice but to stay in the customs union and single market for this reason alone.

 

[Jasondb]

The hard border risk in Ireland isn't just the EU trying to be difficult. Northern Ireland refuses to accept it, the Republic of Ireland refuses to accept it, and the UK has vowed it will never happen either. There's a good chance we'll have no choice but to stay in the customs union and single market for this reason alone.[/QUOTE]

Rubbish, more likely to let Ireland merge and offer those that can't stomach a home in the UK.
We can send back the Irish traveller community that refuse to abide by the laws of the land too.

 

[Newchodge]

The hard border risk in Ireland isn't just the EU trying to be difficult. Northern Ireland refuses to accept it, the Republic of Ireland refuses to accept it, and the UK has vowed it will never happen either. There's a good chance we'll have no choice but to stay in the customs union and single market for this reason alone.

Rubbish, more likely to let Ireland merge and offer those that can't stomach a home in the UK.
We can send back the Irish traveller community that refuse to abide by the laws of the land too.[/QUOTE]

I never did believe the propaganda that all Brexit supporters are racist, mindless idiots. Occasionally, though, I realise they may have been right about some of them.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Rubbish, more likely to let Ireland merge and offer those that can't stomach a home in the UK.

Are you quite young, by any chance?

It's the only reason I can see you being so nonchalant about almost a century of armed conflict that frequently spilled over into Great Britain as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...e_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process

It also shows a profound lack of understanding about the topic if you think that it's as easy as the UK "letting" Ireland merge.

 

[Clodbuster]

This whole thing is an abortion, what it amounts to is the vocal minority deciding that the silent majority haven't got a clue, are bloody stupid and should not have a vote. We'll end up with France and Germany still telling us when to go to the toilet. All I read on here is people wanting to line their pockets. If you want Europe - go and live there.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

This whole thing is an abortion, what it amounts to is the vocal minority deciding that the silent majority haven't got a clue, are bloody stupid and should not have a vote. We'll end up with France and Germany still telling us when to go to the toilet. All I read on here is people wanting to line their pockets. If you want Europe - go and live there.

I think the issue the "vocal minority" has is that no one on the leave side is coming up with a credible plan for the likes of the Irish border and Gibraltar.

Sticking two fingers up at the EU and suggesting we'll accept all the ramifications unless they come up with a solution is, shall we say, a bit risky.

In terms of the economic issues, this is actually far more likely to impact working class people who are already struggling enough as it is.

The thing is, if it was so easy to walk away with a hard brexit (or no deal), and the fallout wouldn't be as bad as some claim, then why wouldn't May do that? She knows that this soft brexit approach risks her losing power and risks the Tories losing the next election.

The ideal solution for her is to break free from the EU, get the UK through with only minimal economic damage, and solve the Irish border issue in a way that might cause some grumbles but ultimately not create any lasting fallout that risks violence. That ticks all the boxes for her while satisfying the Conservative base that voted heavily in favour of leave.

That combination would sweep the Tories into many more years in power and make the UK much easier to govern over the next decade or more, so if it's as feasible as some claim, why isn't she doing it?

 

[Clodbuster]

The Ireland border should be sorted out between Ireland and UK - not some Luxembourg patsy telling us what to do. Are you intimating that it was only the poor who voted to leave? I thought they were Labour supporters?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The Ireland border should be sorted out between Ireland and UK - not some Luxembourg patsy telling us what to do.

It is being sorted out between Ireland and the UK, for all intents and purposes.

It's the Republic of Ireland threatening to veto the deal unless there's a viable backstop. The EU is just supporting one of its member states.

Even the UK has created its own red lines on the subject, vowing never to return to a hard border. Now it just has the extremely difficult (probably impossible) task of satisfying the hard Brexit requirements without crossing those red lines.

Are you intimating that it was only the poor who voted to leave? I thought they were Labour supporters?

Not at all. It was in response to your suggestion that some of us in this thread wish to "line our pockets" as if we're greedy for economic prosperity.

My greatest fear is for those finding it difficult to get by, whether they voted leave or remain. Any economic slump, for any reason, will always hit these people hardest, and a big slump is coming if we fall out of the EU without a deal.

In fact, technically speaking, no deal whatsoever would ground all UK-EU flights on the day we leave, amongst other crazy things, so we better hope they at least cobble together something, which I assume they will.

 

[Clodbuster]

A whopping 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU, and they understood that to mean we leave the club and all its rules, seizing back full control of our economy, our borders and our laws. They understood that because David Cameron, who was the Prime Minister who called the Referendum, repeatedly made this clear in the run-up to the vote. Only for "knowledgeable" people to say afdterwards they voters don't know what they are doing and ignore them. OUT is OUT - not some wishy washy rubbish that YOU feel is better for us.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

A whopping 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU, and they understood that to mean we leave the club and all its rules, seizing back full control of our economy, our borders and our laws. They understood that because David Cameron, who was the Prime Minister who called the Referendum, repeatedly made this clear in the run-up to the vote. Only for "knowledgeable" people to say afdterwards they voters don't know what they are doing and ignore them. OUT is OUT - not some wishy washy rubbish that YOU feel is better for us.

Okay. So what do we do about the Irish border then?

I completely respect that a lot of people have the "out is out" point of view, but what do we do about this?

We made a commitment to the people of Ireland that brought an end to many decades of violence. We have self-imposed a red line to avoid a hard border, but also have to satisfy demands for a hard border that maintains the integrity of the UK.

I'm all ears for any viable solution to this, unless the suggestion is that we don't find a viable solution, rip up the Good Friday Agreement and then accept the fallout that ensues.

 

[Clodbuster]

Then we sort it out to our satisfaction - why be so dogmatic and "rip up the GFA" Does it really hinge around that? I pay no attention to the Irish issue ever, so my impression is that it is not so much a political issue - it is stupid religious ideal. Not important. We need a Trump.

 

[Mr D]

The hard border risk in Ireland isn't just the EU trying to be difficult. Northern Ireland refuses to accept it, the Republic of Ireland refuses to accept it, and the UK has vowed it will never happen either. There's a good chance we'll have no choice but to stay in the customs union and single market for this reason alone.

Rubbish, more likely to let Ireland merge and offer those that can't stomach a home in the UK.
We can send back the Irish traveller community that refuse to abide by the laws of the land too.[/QUOTE]


There have been referendums about merging. The people voted against it.
Will imposing a merge be better when neither government wants that? I don't think so.

Irish traveller community - they can currently travel like anyone else. After we leave they can be restricted a little but how porous are the EU and UK borders? We KNOW for certain that currently people can enter the UK and EU across borders easily.
Even the Berlin Wall, one of the better facilities for keeping people apart, couldn't stop people moving over the border entirely.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Oh my, the level of intelligence in this thread is beyond me.


@Clodbuster what purpose would there be to control our borders if, as suggested by the Leave extremists (Jacobs Rees-Mogg & his ERG group for example) controlling them means to not control them – leave them entirely open, anyone that can visit the European member that is the Republic of Ireland will be freely available to enter the UK too?


@Clodbuster, as you don’t know too much about the border that passes through the nine counties of Ulster, are you familiar with the Common Travel Area? This agreement far predates anything we ever ventured with our wider European neighbours, and won’t be varied by Brexit. With no border, but respect of the CTA, we would have control of our borders in theory only – we’d continue to keep them open in practice.


You have added extreme offence with your other comments today:

This whole thing is an abortion, what it amounts to is the vocal minority deciding that the silent majority haven't got a clue, are bloody stupid and should not have a vote.

First of all, abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, so I suggest your choice of language is most offensive to many there.


You complained about (unsubstantiated) suggestions that the debate infers the “silent majority” haven’t got a clue.


And then you state that you…

I pay no attention to the Irish issue ever, so my impression is that it is not so much a political issue - it is stupid religious ideal.

…haven’t got a clue!


And further, just to enforce your point, you say…

Not important.

Tell the families of the more than 3,500 who were killed in the Troubles that it’s not important, you offensive scrote!



Karl Limpert

 

[Mr D]

Calm down folks.

We won't solve the troubles of the world in a day and its not worth getting worked up about someone not knowing some information.

The issue of NI border is a Brexit issue and one that over 2 years hasn't produced a solution agreeable to all parties.

We aren't going to resolve it on here before Monday.

Those who remember the Troubles - the NI border with Ireland had years of infrastructure built by the end? And was still pretty unsecure as a border?
So we can forget that as an option.

There will be multiple other options some (most?) totally unacceptable to the locals. And pretty much any solution with government involved I'm betting on longer than 9 months.

 

[The Byre]

you offensive scrote!

Brilliant! My first belly-laugh of the day!

One of those words that livens up any game of Scrabble!