Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 01:27PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So the UK shouldn't pay for pensions of British civil servants who worked in the EU?

where did I say that?

Calina wrote: »

TBH Fred, I think that yes, the UK should indemnify the EU for costs forced on the EU by a UK decision which the EU neither wanted nor sought.

Relocation of the EU agencies is a key example. The decision was a UK decision. Why wouldn't the UK take responsibility for it? You wanted control back, right?

Really, the UK appears not have a clue what it has signed up for.

"I" wanted to take back control?

I think the UK should contribute, I certainly don't think they should give an indemnity. Good god, the civil servants would all be chartering their own private jets if you offered them that

I also think the countries taking on those agencies should contribute, it is a benefit for those countries, so why not?

This is all part and parcel of the negotiation though and as far as I can see, there is no "Legal" obligation on the UK to pay. If you are negotiating, then i you have no obligation to pay something, then a simple rule is that you don't unless you get something in return.

steddyeddy · 05-09-2017 01:28PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

The EU isn't a restaurant. It's a political a economic union that the UK is trying to get a good trade deal with.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 01:31PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU isn't a restaurant. It's a political a economic union that the UK is trying to get a good trade deal with.

I know Sherlock, i was using someone else's (not very good) analogy.

RDM_83 again · 05-09-2017 01:35PM

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Chips Lovell · 05-09-2017 01:38PM

That's the point of the negotiation. Agreeing what the UK's commitments are and putting a number on them.

oppenheimer1 · 05-09-2017 01:41PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Most of the projects the EU funds have durations of many years. It would not be prudent to award projects to the UK whose end date will run beyond March 2019.

RDM_83 again · 05-09-2017 01:53PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Most of the projects the EU funds have durations of many years. It would not be prudent to award projects to the UK whose end date will run beyond March 2019.

Yes that's true but as noted the EU bill includes items that have not been initiated and with a time scale of 7 years there seems to be a lot of double think going on in relation to this. Both can't be true if the EU is being "reasonable"
Remember the UK isn't gone yet (though my theory held since before the referendum is that a segment of EU not national figures want UK gone to help speed federalism and increase the power of the Franco German axis)

listermint · 05-09-2017 01:56PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

once again the thread disappears off into fantasy land.:rolleyes:

there is no suggestion that the uk isn't going to pay what it has committed to, Davis has already said this, so trying to claim the UK will "Weasel out of this" is just plain daft and to be honest, makes a mockery of this thread which is supposed to be about sensible discussion.

Sorry you clearly are not following the thread. It was suggested that the UK could use their bill as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The bills is the bill same as any restaurant. If there is any fantasy land take it up with the poster rather than multi quoting me to make some point that I didn't make.

I suggest you read what was said.

listermint · 05-09-2017 02:00PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Remember the UK isn't gone yet (though my theory held since before the referendum is that a segment of EU not national figures want UK gone to help speed federalism and increase the power of the Franco German axis)

Sorry but what?

Most want the UK gone at this point because they have been abysmal to deal with unreasonable anti EU for years and illogical.

That's not th EU that's the UK

PeadarCo · 05-09-2017 02:02PM

RDM_83 again wrote:

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received). If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly. If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

The EU isn't an honest broker. It never was and never will be in Brexit negotiations. The EUs job is to look after its members. The UK won't be a member after negotiations finish. The UKs interests are irrelevant to the EU to a large extent. The Brexit bill being a case in point. The EU will seek to get the most out of the UK as possible. Davis mentioned about the EU trying to blackmail the UK. If the EU is in a position to blackmail the UK and its in the interest of its member states it would be negligent of EU negotiators not too.

This is fairly basic negotiation tactics. Its the reason Ireland is a member to take advantage of the increased bargaining power in trade negotiations that comes with memberships.

ambro25 · 05-09-2017 02:06PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

eu negotiating guidelines do not equal UK commitments though, do they?

Of course not...but some of the EU negotiating guidelines may equal the EU's own red lines. I seem to recall EU nationals' rights in UK (and reciprocally for Brits in the EU), the Irish border, and that "exit bill" we're currently on about, as 3 such red lines?

Food for thought at least, I'd have thought.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I also think the countries taking on those agencies should contribute, it is a benefit for those countries, so why not?

In many of the various "red mat" proposals submitted this summer (those publicised at least), the bidding countries certainly are.

They seem to know well, the worth of what they stand to gain.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is all part and parcel of the negotiation though and as far as I can see, there is no "Legal" obligation on the UK to pay. If you are negotiating, then i you have no obligation to pay something, then a simple rule is that you don't unless you get something in return.

Save for the fact that at least some of the UK's obligations have a legal basis enforceable before the ECJ (first, until end March 2019 at least) then the ICJ, as already amply discussed in this and the preceding threads: sure, post-2020 commitments are all up in the air for top-to-bottom negotiations; but at least those earlier British commitments to 2020 all fall within the scope of the TEU/TFEU, and are enforceable by the ECJ at first instance, then by the ICJ when the jurisdiction of the ECJ becomes moot come end March 2019. It would be utterly pointless of the UK to try and play the clock on the ECJ jurisdiction: France and Germany (at least) would always take it to the cleaners in the ICJ afterwards regardless, if only to continue undermining its later FTA efforts with 3rd party countries.

If you are negotiating under the threat of litigation for <breach of contract, infringement, etc.>, negotiations in that context are conducted on what is called a "pre-action" basis: open neutral/placeholding letter, and privileged (without prejudice save as to costs) nitty-gritty letters. From earlier interaction and posts, I'm quietly confident you'd know that? Doesn't prevent or stop negotiations as such...but it certainly helps the would-be claimant steer the would-be defendant where they want them, and influence the cost-benefit ratio of the exercise and outcomes for both parties

Testiculating about the notion of an "exit bill" is utterly pointless for the UK, and in debates in here. If not on the basis that Davis agreed to that notion at least in principle, when he accepted the EU's negotiating agenda way-back-when, then for the commonsensical reason that the UK cannot hope to have better than WTO terms (and, in fact, may have to settle for less than WTO terms, after an adverse ICJ judgement gets translated into trade sanctions), if it refuses to pay that "exit bill" (the amount of which remains to be debated/negotiated/agreed, of course). It's an inevitability, and so very politically charged in the UK by reason of same.

Thomas__ · 05-09-2017 02:15PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a big difference between an exit bill and paying your commitments.

To use listermint's analogy, you don't go to a restaurant, eat your meal, pay your bill and then have to pay €15 to get your coat back from the cloakroom, because well, you know, you used it

The EU isn't a restaurant. It's a political a economic union that the UK is trying to get a good trade deal with.

They are indeed "trying" but obviously with the wrong footing cos they lack a big deal of substancial sense for reality and therefore they will get nothing by the final date set for at latest 31 March 2019. I just like to suggest to even imagine the same UK "crew" that has proved themselves as such a failure to continue with negotiations for separate trade deals after the UK has finally exited the EU. They will still get nothing done after twenty years from 2019 onwards.

I am rather convinced that even by the end of March 2018, the UK won´t have moved one pace forward in her negotiations, unless they come to their senses or even better have a new govt in place and a new team for the negotiations as well, one the EU can work with and get things settled.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 02:16PM

listermint wrote: »

Sorry you clearly are not following the thread. It was suggested that the UK could use their bill as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The bills is the bill same as any restaurant. If there is any fantasy land take it up with the poster rather than multi quoting me to make some point that I didn't make.

I suggest you read what was said.

I did. You are clearly confusing commitments with the bill.

If, in your little restaurant, you order sausage, egg and chips, you have committed to pay for sausage egg and chips.

If the restaurant then gives you a bill for sausage, egg, chips and a charge for clearing away your table, then you would be correct in querying the bill. would you not?

steddyeddy · 05-09-2017 02:22PM

The problem is that the UK hasn't even put forward a method of calculation for determining what they owe.

Thomas__ · 05-09-2017 02:24PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I know I have a few posts to reply to about economics but I've a question. There has been a lot of people in academia and other fields saying that the EU is no longer awarding stuff to the UK because of Brexit (some of these brought up by posters on this thread and we'll received).
If this is the case but it's also the case that the UK owes 2 rather than 7 years of costs and commitments (aside from pensions) or alternatively it's the case that EU bodies are not awarding funds fairly.
If they are being a reasonable honest broker both can't be true unless ones of the opinion that the EU can literally do no wrong.

Most of the projects the EU funds have durations of many years. It would not be prudent to award projects to the UK whose end date will run beyond March 2019.

Yes that's true but as noted the EU bill includes items that have not been initiated and with a time scale of 7 years there seems to be a lot of double think going on in relation to this. Both can't be true if the EU is being "reasonable"
Remember the UK isn't gone yet (though my theory held since before the referendum is that a segment of EU not national figures want UK gone to help speed federalism and increase the power of the Franco German axis)

Would you rather had have a "Brit-Franco" or "Brit-Franco-German" axis? Sorry to disappoint but it´s been the Brits themselves who always made sure that their commitment within the EU is at the minimum and their "repay" is at the most "achievable". That´s one reason among various which explains that the leave camp won the BrexitRef last year. The "emotional" link from the many of the (older) Brits towards Europe has always been somewhat "ambivalent". The younger generation of them grew up in a UK that was already part of the EU when they were born, now they have to face a future outside of it, voted for by a part of the populace that has lived in times pre-EU Membership and keeps a deluded and illusionary picture of a past which they deem to have been better than being a member of the EU but which isn´t true at all, but which is very selfish towards their descendants and their future.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 02:26PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Of course not...but some of the EU negotiating guidelines may equal the EU's own red lines. I seem to recall EU nationals' rights in UK (and reciprocally for Brits in the EU), the Irish border, and that "exit bill" we're currently on about, as 3 such red lines?

Food for thought at least, I'd have thought.

ignoring citizens rights and the Irish border (because that is just muddying the water) the eu can have as many red lines as it likes over the "Bill", but those redlines do not equal commitments by the UK.

ambro25 wrote: »

In many of the various "red mat" proposals submitted this summer (those publicised at least), the bidding countries certainly are.

They seem to know well, the worth of what they stand to gain.

Great, so we are agreed that there is no need for the UK to cover the full cost of moving these agencies then.

ambro25 wrote: »

Save for the fact that at least some of the UK's obligations have a legal basis enforceable before the ECJ (first, until end March 2019 at least) then the ICJ, as already amply discussed in this and the preceding threads: sure, post-2020 commitments are all up in the air for top-to-bottom negotiations; but at least those earlier British commitments to 2020 all fall within the scope of the TEU/TFEU, and are enforceable by the ECJ at first instance, then by the ICJ when the jurisdiction of the ECJ becomes moot come end March 2019. It would be utterly pointless of the UK to try and play the clock on the ECJ jurisdiction: France and Germany (at least) would always take it to the cleaners in the ICJ afterwards regardless, if only to continue undermining its later FTA efforts with 3rd party countries.

If you are negotiating under the threat of litigation for <breach of contract, infringement, etc.>, negotiations in that context are conducted on what is called a "pre-action" basis: open neutral/placeholding letter, and privileged (without prejudice save as to costs) nitty-gritty letters. From earlier interaction and posts, I'm quietly confident you'd know that.

why do lawyers always insist on writing so many words? is it a throw back to the days of being paid per letter?

I have lost count with the amount of times I have said this, but i will say it again.

The UK has already stated that it will pay for what it is committed to, it will honour its obligations.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 02:30PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem is that the UK hasn't even put forward a method of calculation for determining what they owe.

I don't think either side could, because it is such a massive calculation, it would require two teams sitting down and working out what the eu is spending, where, and when. Then breaking it down in to who owes what and to whom

Thomas__ · 05-09-2017 02:31PM

Calina wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote:

How is that a commitment by the UK? it is just aspirational stuff from the eu and will therefore be open to negotiation.

TBH Fred, I think that yes, the UK should indemnify the EU for costs forced on the EU by a UK decision which the EU neither wanted nor sought.

Relocation of the EU agencies is a key example. The decision was a UK decision. Why wouldn't the UK take responsibility for it? You wanted control back, right?

Really, the UK appears not have a clue what it has signed up for.

Quite so but they have their wishful thinking list which will always be rejected by the EU and more to the point, they act as if they have deaf ears. It´s stunning that they see themselves as being "professional politicians", they are the laughing stock of Europe.

listermint · 05-09-2017 02:33PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I did. You are clearly confusing commitments with the bill.

If, in your little restaurant, you order sausage, egg and chips, you have committed to pay for sausage egg and chips.

If the restaurant then gives you a bill for sausage, egg, chips and a charge for clearing away your table, then you would be correct in querying the bill. would you not?

You seemed to have missed the part where there is no additions to the bill.

The bill is the bill.

Without additions which solo was making up it can't be used as a bargaining chip. It's hopping out on the sausage egg and chips haven eaten it all.

You do realize the UK signed up to the existing budget there is a bill no additions on the table.

ambro25 · 05-09-2017 02:34PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ignoring citizens rights and the Irish border (because that is just muddying the water) the eu can have as many red lines as it likes over the "Bill", but those redlines do not equal commitments by the UK.

You misunderstand the point: the bill itself is the red line. And in that context...

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK has already stated that it will pay for what it is committed to, it will honour its obligations.

...Great, so we are agreed that the UK will pay the exit bill, which shall reflect its obligations as set out in the EU's original guidelines (see Jep Gambardella's post of 12:12):

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Great, so we are agreed that there is no need for the UK to cover the full cost of moving these agencies then.

Continuing with the restaurant bill analogy, someone is offering to slip the waiter a £10 for the nicer table away from the toilet/kitchen door, and you'd want the UK's bill reduced by that £10 because it is vacating that very table?

Dream on.

Those agencies are only moving because the UK decided to exit the club, not for any other reason.

The agencies cannot be located outside the EU, by (EU) law.

The UK knew this (or should have known, had anyone in Whitehall done their homework).

Yet, still Ms May triggered Article 50, which forced the moving decision and set the moving deadline to end March 2019.

The UK remains fully liable for the moving costs, from where I'm looking at it. I think they might fall under "sundries"

Thomas__ · 05-09-2017 02:40PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ignoring citizens rights and the Irish border (because that is just muddying the water) the eu can have as many red lines as it likes over the "Bill", but those redlines do not equal commitments by the UK.

You misunderstand the point: the bill itself is the red line. And in that context...

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK has already stated that it will pay for what it is committed to, it will honour its obligations.

...Great, so we are agreed that the UK will pay the exit bill, which shall reflect its obligations as set out in the EU's original guidelines (see Jep Gambardella's post of 12:12):

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Exit bill = meeting existing obligations. As per EU negotiating guidelines:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Great, so we are agreed that there is no need for the UK to cover the full cost of moving these agencies then.

How so?

Those agencies are only moving because the UK decided to exit the club, and the agencies cannot be located outside the EU by law. The UK knew this (or should have known, had anyone in Whitehall done their homework), and still Ms May triggered Article 50, which declared the moving deadline as March 2019.

The UK remains fully liable for the moving costs, from where I'm looking at it.

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure whether there is any legal regulation that would back up your claim. Normally, a company who moves out by her own decision is to pay for the move by herself and can´t bring it up to the (former) host country to pay for it. They haven´t been "kicked out", they leave while there is time to leave in orderly manners and without too much haste and get things settled for "Day-X" which is within March 2019.

oscarBravo · 05-09-2017 02:43PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

I'm not really sure what the point is. What if the outcome of the referendum is "no" - does that mean exiting with no deal? Will the ramifications of such an exit be explained to the voting public, and will those ramifications be dismissed yet again by lying vested interests as "project fear"?

Brexit is already the catastrophic outcome of an unwise referendum in which an under-informed electorate made a decision on something they were too apathetic to fully understand. I'm not sure what's to be gained by compounding the error.

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 02:48PM

listermint wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the part where there is no additions to the bill.

The bill is the bill.

Without additions which solo was making up it can't be used as a bargaining chip. It's hopping out on the sausage egg and chips haven eaten it all.

You do realize the UK signed up to the existing budget there is a bill no additions on the table.

There are additions to the bill, I have already highlighted a very obvious one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not really sure what the point is. What if the outcome of the referendum is "no" - does that mean exiting with no deal? Will the ramifications of such an exit be explained to the voting public, and will those ramifications be dismissed yet again by lying vested interests as "project fear"?

Brexit is already the catastrophic outcome of an unwise referendum in which an under-informed electorate made a decision on something they were too apathetic to fully understand. I'm not sure what's to be gained by compounding the error.

it is just Labour being populist. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

LeinsterDub · 05-09-2017 02:53PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

where did I say that?

Can you outline what if any areas you believe the UK has on going commitments to the EU

Fratton Fred · 05-09-2017 02:54PM

ambro25 wrote: »

The UK remains fully liable for the moving costs, from where I'm looking at it. I think they might fall under "sundries"

Or penalties?

LeinsterDub · 05-09-2017 03:00PM

Britain will seek to cut-and-paste existing EU trade deals with other countries because it cannot cope with fresh negotiations, Liam Fox has admitted.

First we learned that countries such as Japan and India have no interest in doing separate trade deals with the UK,” said Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat leader.

“Now we learn that, even if there was appetite for such deals, we wouldn’t have the capacity to negotiate them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-cut-paste-trade-deals-countries-liam-fox-secretary-a7929931.html

The train crash continues apace . So the UK is going to copy and paste agreements with people who have no interest in talking to them and when they decide they want to talk to the UK they most like will want a better deal than they currently have with the EU.

ambro25 · 05-09-2017 03:02PM

Thomas__ wrote: »

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure whether there is any legal regulation that would back up your claim. Normally, a company who moves out by her own decision is to pay for the move by herself and can´t bring it up to the (former) host country to pay for it. They haven´t been "kicked out", they leave while there is time to leave in orderly manners and without too much haste and get things settled for "Day-X" which is within March 2019.

I'll not bore you to tears with legalese (so as to avoid another expression of Fred's aversion for long words and lengthy sentences

), but there is ample legal basis to contend that EU agencies must be based within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Not least the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, and the extension of the provisions of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (Protocol 7 to the TFEU, which necessarily 'requires' location within the ECJ jurisdiction) to all EU agencies (with or without headquarters agreement), more recently coalesced into the (2013) Guidelines with standard provisions for headquarters agreements of EU decentralised agencies.

EU agencies are being kicked out of the UK. But as an automatic consequence/operation of law, not by an executive order expressly telling them to clear out or somesuch.

Now, pragmatically, they can either move early of their own initiative, to maintain continuity of operation. Or let the systems and services which they respectively provide fall off a cliff on March 2019. Which do you think is the more responsible approach, noting that it is the UK's decision to exit the EU which has placed them in that position in the first place?

There will be umpteen similar 'kicking out' automatically taking place come March 2019, due to the UK exiting the EU (-jurisdiction of the ECJ). It's not like I haven't already brought attention to UK trademark attorneys getting automatically 'kicked out' of the EUIPO come March 2019: same difference, with EU agencies in the UK. There's tons more.

Personally, I can't hardly wait to see what they cook up with OpenSkies, and to Michael O'Leary's more colourful PR to come

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or penalties?

Lest we forget: self-imposed.

Thomas__ · 05-09-2017 03:04PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Adonis has suggested that it will become Labour policy to have a referendum on the exit deal.

I'm not really sure what the point is. What if the outcome of the referendum is "no" - does that mean exiting with no deal? Will the ramifications of such an exit be explained to the voting public, and will those ramifications be dismissed yet again by lying vested interests as "project fear"?

Brexit is already the catastrophic outcome of an unwise referendum in which an under-informed electorate made a decision on something they were too apathetic to fully understand. I'm not sure what's to be gained by compounding the error.

A second BrexitRef would rather stand a Chance of reverting the result from 2016 when a) Corbyn is no longer leader of Labour and b) the LibDems get more votes in a snap election held before a BrexitRef2 and c) the wider public realises that they have been led up the garden path by the Brexiteers and will vote different which means in a majority for remain. As These three suggestions are not likely to happen in the near future, the UK will stay on the road to Exit the EU and afterwards have to cope with what they gained in this running negotiations or not, given that they will achieve anything at all.

murphaph · 05-09-2017 03:07PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or penalties?

Come on Fred. The UK bid for these agencies and they were located in London at great expense to the EU's taxpayers. London office space is not exactly cheap.

The UK knew that leaving the EU would cause these agencies to require new homes. Brexit is the reason they have to move and Brexit is the UK's decision. Therefore the costs of moving these agencies are at least morally the UK's responsibility.

But we're talking about peanuts here compared to the value of a FTA to the UK. The UK simply needs the goodwill of the EU or it's in huge trouble come March 2019. Without a deal and a transitional phase, the UK will have to prostitute itself in the four corners of the world and even that won't be enough to prevent massive (possibly irreparable) damage to the UK economy.

The problem is the average Brit still seems to think the UK and EU are equal partners in all this, including it would seem government ministers.

steddyeddy · 05-09-2017 03:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are additions to the bill, I have already highlighted a very obvious one.

it is just Labour being populist. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

As opposed to the Tory party? The only non-populist group is the Lib Dems.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments