Brexit discussion thread II

embraer170 · 23-11-2017 10:40PM

Solo:

You repeatedly mention Switzerland as a model for the border issues based on the 2% of border crossings needing physical checks.

Firstly, Switzerland is in Schengen and a signatory to the free movement of people (with some exceptions).

Secondly, the number of trucks transits getting checked is far higher than 2%. Anyone crossing the Swiss/German border on a weekday on the Karlsruhe-Basel motorway (busiest border crossing in Switzerland) is likely to see queues of trucks. These can stretch for miles on the very bad days. The last few miles before the border on the German side are set up with a complex traffic management system that can close off one or two motorway lanes for queuing trucks.

Some of the smaller Switzerland/EU border crossing points are closed by barriers for all traffic at night. The number of these nighttime closures is actually increasing!

(If you read French: https://www.tdg.ch/geneve/grand-geneve/etat-envisage-prolonger-fermeture-petites-douanes/story/17761499)

Is this really what we imagine as a “model” for the border with Northern Ireland?

An Ciarraioch · 23-11-2017 10:49PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But any election called, even if delayed, makes Varadkar a lame duck at the summit in December, this weakens our position.

Indeed, but it would only happen if FF actually vote against her next week, which is still an outside likelihood.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-11-2017 10:50PM

Nody wrote: »

Remember all those great trade deals UK where to sign? Well India has indicated it will take at least a decade and require significantly higher immigration; what was Brexit about again? Reduced immigration, right? Oops...

It's not even news

This from a year ago, in case you want to see how little has changed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/india-warns-uk-immigration-policy-wreck-post-brexit-trade-deal

A spokesman for India’s minister of external affairs suggested that a policy brought in by May as home secretary restricting the right of Indian students to stay in the UK after graduation could prove to be a block on any progress.
...
May’s refusal to allow greater access to the UK for skilled Indian workers, in particular, “screwed up” chances of an EU-India trade deal.

Apart from the India-EU trade deal , what else is the UK stopping the EU from doing ?

23-11-2017 10:52PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Sweden, Finland and Austria, for instance, have expressed interest in PESCO, though not in NATO.

Yes, I’m aware of that, but it doesn’t answer the question.

Who gets to decide where and when to fight? Would an eu army be a member of NATO and if not, does that mean the closure of US bases in Europe? Because without them, Europe’s defence capabilities would be hugely reduced.

flaneur · 23-11-2017 10:57PM

They also have the assumption that their former imperial conquests all have some kind of great love of all things British and that the empire was a lovely golf club. I could see India really dragging this out.

They have some vague notion about selling financial services into China too. China has no need or want for these and has its own financial hubs anyway and it's also the UK standing on both Singapore and Australian toes as they've a niche in that area and are very annoyed about a notion that the UK is going to try and muscle in.

There's a lot of stuff the UK is proposing that is already 100% possible within the EU too.

Quite a lot of fantasy and misrepresenting the current situation going on!

murphaph · 23-11-2017 11:06PM

Aegir wrote: »

There are obvious benefits to a European army, but the who do they take their orders from?

If it is just simply a coalition with countries able to opt in or out (remember Ireland has a carte blanch exemption from this), then what’s the difference between an eu army and NATO?

Well it would have to be similar to NATO insofar as if one EU country were attacked we would all be compelled to respond.

I suspect the EU parliament would need to sanction any military action by such an army.

It would be much more than just a coalition though. You'd have massive economies of scale if an EU army was ordering trucks, food, uniforms etc. rather than 28 smaller armies.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-11-2017 11:07PM

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.

Do the UK public realise this :eek:

23-11-2017 11:21PM

murphaph wrote: »

Well it would have to be similar to NATO insofar as if one EU country were attacked we would all be compelled to respond.

I suspect the EU parliament would need to sanction any military action by such an army.

It would be much more than just a coalition though. You'd have massive economies of scale if an EU army was ordering trucks, food, uniforms etc. rather than 28 smaller armies.

We already have that obligation under the common defence policy.

I get the economies of scale, although I’m skeptical if it would actually happen. I just don’t feel particularly comfortable giving control of our military to a parliament where we have very little representation.

Schorpio · 23-11-2017 11:23PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.

Do the UK public realise this :eek:

Yes, but it's the fault of remoaners / the unelected EU bureaucrats / Jeremy Corbyn / the Tories / the Irish / Michel Barnier / Derek Davis!!

It's time to WALK AWAY / LEAVE / ACCEPT THAT YOU LOST / GET OUT NOW.

(Delete as appropriate).

LeinsterDub · 23-11-2017 11:23PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.

Do the UK public realise this :eek:

Yes but like one of resident pro Brexit folks said . "Taking back control and reasons".

Leroy42 · 23-11-2017 11:30PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.

Do the UK public realise this :eek:

I don't think it would make any difference even if they did. It is akin to Trump.

They have faith in Brexit, despite all the evidence that everything they were told to this point has been shown to be fake, their faith in Brexit is unshakeable.

We had a clear example on it by Solo. Worst forecasts since 1860's, a further drop of 0.4% in growth forecasts for each of the next 5 years, and all that was said was it wasn't the worst case that some had said it would be so nothing to worry about.

They still believe their is this utopia of free trade.

oscarBravo · 23-11-2017 11:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that I lived in Ireland for over 20 years. I know the attitude that exists. I'm entitled to my own assessment of my experience. I respect you disagree.

Did you live in Ireland during any of the referendum campaigns? It's difficult to argue that there's a narrative of "all benevolent" during one of those.

I also respectfully disagree with the notion that the EU is a free market.

You misunderstand; perhaps you missed the danger quotes.

My point was that the EU provides structures within which the competing interests of the member states can be constructively discussed and a consensus arrived at. Without those structures, there's substantially less incentive for consensus and much more motive for the sort of winner-takes-all, zero-sum attitude that is all too evident in the Brexit negotiations.

This is part of the frustration that is felt in respect to trade policy in a world that is growing more rapidly outside of the EU.

There is no trade bloc in the world with more free trade agreements than the EU; I'm unsure whether there is a single country in the world with more free trade agreements than the EU. The narrative of the EU as an insular protectionist entity is one that I don't understand at all.

I've had conversations with people in the Berlaymont that made it clear to me that the EU's ultimate goal is much more trade with the whole world, but achieved over time in a well-managed way.

Hell, one of the criticisms you hear from left-wingers is that the EU has a globalist agenda. I've always said that when you're being criticised equally by extremists on both sides, you're probably doing something right.

blanch152 · 23-11-2017 11:41PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.

Do the UK public realise this :eek:

Will average earnings in Ireland reach 2008 levels by 2022?

The recently published bill only restores public service pay to 2008 levels by 2022, but the pension levy will still be in place so they will be still be behind 2008.

The Rape of Lucretia · 23-11-2017 11:42PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.

Do the UK public realise this :eek:

They are taking no notice of it. Those predictions are compiled be 'experts', so whats the point in listening to them ?
The man in the UK street knows that when the UK gets deals sorted in 2019 with India, Brazil, Dominica, Lesotho, Comoros, etc, the tremendous boost to the UK economy will more than offset anything it will lose from dealing with the EU.

Sand · 23-11-2017 11:46PM

I cant say I was happy to see the leaks from the Irish government today. While it is amusing to see what the EU really think of Davis and co, and it does show up Solo's faith that things are better behind the scenes than they seem in the media it is bad for Ireland. Those views were collected from our friends speaking frankly. They will be less keen to speak to Ireland in future, and less willing to speak openly if their words are going to be leaked as they were. Also, the leak has Irish govt finger prints all over it: it will create bad feeling in the UK government which can only complicate our efforts to secure our priority: no hard border with NI.

One other point struck me. When the UK leaves the EU/EEA its going to impact their funds industry. UK CIVs can benefit from tax reductions or exemptions in securities held across the EU/EEA. The majority of these depend on DTTs, which wont be directly impacted, but several of them depend on domestic laws. A very typical condition to be approved for these tax reductions in several states is that the UK CIV is resident in an EU/EEA state. That is going to end for the UK in March 2019. Ireland could benefit in such a case, with UK funds switching to Dublin (or Luxembourg) to continue receiving tax benefits they would otherwise lose.

murphaph wrote: »

Well it would have to be similar to NATO insofar as if one EU country were attacked we would all be compelled to respond.

I suspect the EU parliament would need to sanction any military action by such an army.

It would be much more than just a coalition though. You'd have massive economies of scale if an EU army was ordering trucks, food, uniforms etc. rather than 28 smaller armies.

The EU parliament simply lacks the legitimacy to sanction any such military action. That's something the national governments will jealously guard. Ireland and the other non-NATO EU members will simply kill off any such joint defence proposal.

Germany and France fundamentally disagree on the use of military force both inside and outside of Europe. France uses military adventures in Africa and elsewhere as an extension of foreign policy. Germany viscerally does not and is deeply suspicious of French intentions as regards NATO and colonial adventures. Neither France nor Germany want to place their military under the authority of the other. There will be no EU army where the two largest powers have such heavily diverging interests and views on military force.

A huge advance for EU co-ordination would even be agreeing something as basic as freedom of movement for military vehicles and units. Currently for French troops to travel to or through Germany requires mountains of paperwork and approvals: this hugely slows any military reaction to Russian adventures.

The absolute limit of EU military co-operation for this century will be *some* EU states agreeing to co-ordinate their national armoured brigades to form multi-national armoured divisions under NATO corps (Dutch-Germans already doing this) to achieve the most effective deterrent to the Russian for the least outlay. A military confederation or league rather than a common army, which is entirely a fear of the British tabloids.

Leroy42 · 23-11-2017 11:48PM

It is only bad for Ireland if you believe that they were leaked by Ireland alone.

I have my doubts. The EU has already leaked two direct meetings with May. This simply follows that pattern.

J Mysterio · 24-11-2017 12:18AM

Nody wrote: »

Remember all those great trade deals UK where to sign? Well India has indicated it will take at least a decade and require significantly higher immigration; what was Brexit about again? Reduced immigration, right? Oops...

I alternate between utter contempt, anger, pity, scorn and sadness on Brexit. It's just so surreal.

The most amazing thing was that there wasnt even a referendum commission! In Ireland we have referendum commissions for everything! They produce a well researched and comprehensive pamphlet (delivered to every house) and website. This lists the pros and cons of all outcomes and shows different perspectives. This information is further disseminated through radio and tv ads.

In Britain, there was nothing. It was left to the tabloids. In Britain, the Sun has the highest circulation of all papers.

This decision is just the most unimaginable catastrophe for Britain. It's a car crash which is excruciatingly drawn out and is progressively more gory and brutal to watch. It's also shameful and backward.

The Cabinet is the worst assemblage of untrustworthy cretins to have ever darkened the door of Westminster. Deceit and incompetence. There should be riots and protest.

flaneur · 24-11-2017 12:39AM

I think that was more of an unofficial press release than a leak tbh.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2017 01:32AM

J Mysterio wrote: »

I alternate between utter contempt, anger, pity, scorn and sadness on Brexit. It's just so surreal.

The most amazing thing was that there wasnt even a referendum commission! In Ireland we have referendum commissions for everything! They produce a well researched and comprehensive pamphlet (delivered to every house) and website. This lists the pros and cons of all outcomes and shows different perspectives. This information is further disseminated through radio and tv ads.

In Britain, there was nothing. It was left to the tabloids. In Britain, the Sun has the highest circulation of all papers.

And it's not just a referendum commission.

We'd have voted on the EXACT WORDS so no ambiguity on the meaning , no second guessing, just the exact words, which can't be overruled by the Government or the Judiciary.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2017 03:55AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is only bad for Ireland if you believe that they were leaked by Ireland alone.

I have my doubts. The EU has already leaked two direct meetings with May. This simply follows that pattern.

Yeah, but this was an internal Iveagh House paper, not something that we sent to the EU. It's certainly possible that the media got it from someone in Brusssels, but if so someone in Brussels got it from someone in Iveagh House.

Enzokk · 24-11-2017 08:12AM

kowtow wrote: »

What, precisely, is a problem for the UK here?

Why do I need a reason other than a touching fondness for the underdog or a love of balanced debate?

Since Lisbon at least it has been the democratic right of a nation to exit the EU. Membership is not an irrevocable commitment - and I think it is telling that so many here seem determined to attack the decision of the British people and their reasoning, often in terms of contempt rather than address the issue at hand which is that a member of the EU has decided to leave.

The reality is that the border issue, which appears on the face of it to be a tactical advantage being exploited by Ireland, might actually expose a bigger weakness if it ends up being Ireland drawing a hard border across the Country.

That there should be such defensive reactions to the point being raised speaks volumes.

Okay, so lets examine some of the reasons why the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. There have been attempts to engage solo on some of this but any position that he doesn't agree with or doesn't want to deal with is waved away or ignored.

Immigration to the UK. The rules currently permit a country to remove a person after 6 months of their arrival in a member state if they haven't found work. Was the UK public aware of this? Why is this not being enforced in the UK? How is this a EU problem if the UK ignores this provision?

Trade agreements, the UK cannot sign trade agreements with other countries. This assumes that somehow the UK will be able to get better trade terms on their own and also that the UK doesn't have any say in trade agreements that the EU does have and is negotiating. As we have seen with links provided that one of the reasons there is no trade agreement with India at the moment is the UK holding back on demands for more open immigration from India. The UK has the power to block negotiations if it doesn't work for them in a trade agreement. I fail to see how this will change all of a sudden if the UK is free of the EU, will they open their borders or will the other nation just give in to the UK demands because (enter reason here that I cannot think of).

Sovereignty of laws. This is the other important detail in the campaign. Lets take back control of our laws, yet I have not seen any specific law that the EU has forced on the UK that it needs/wants to repeal. Now they may want to get rid of laws/regulations that irritate them (working hour rules) but those are for the paymasters and not the employees. The term, turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. Now if you can supply some laws that hindered the UK worker and economy (as compared to other EU nations that you would assume fall under these same laws as well) then I will be interested to see it. In any case there has been admission that the UK "remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU", but people didn't feel it.

The Brexit White Paper completely contradicts a key argument for Brexit

Parliament has “remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU” despite people “not always feeling like that”, the Brexit White Paper says.

This is what happens when you give a free voice to the newspapers and there is no body to oversee if what they print is accurate. You get those in charge of those news organisations play with people's feelings and print misleading stories about the EU and people believe it.

The other important argument that was made was the £350m per week to the EU that should find the NHS instead. This was shown to be a lie not even 6 hours after the result was known. In fact it should have been known to be a lie during the campaign, but because you had lots of different people talking about leaving the EU they could always walk away from a slogan if it was the other campaign saying it. Nigel Farage doesn't have to account for the £350m per week as he didn't use it. Boris Johnson never had to muddy the waters with distasteful immigration propaganda as Nigel was doing it for him. Neither would call out the other on their tactics as they were fighting for the same side, so there was no accountability.

So there we have what I consider to be the main arguments that was made in favour of leaving the EU. All of those points can easily be shown to be either a lie or at least there is scope from being in the EU to change the circumstances to provide better "protection" for yourself from some elements of being part of the EU. That is on the previous people in charge in the UK and not the EU.

Zubeneschamali · 24-11-2017 09:04AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Do the UK public realise this

Not yet, but they will. And Brexit hasn't even happened yet.

The question will be can May, Boris & co. successfully blame the EU, or will they get it in the neck.

And can they stagger on until march 2019, or will Corbyn get a chance at the Brexit deal.

Zubeneschamali · 24-11-2017 09:08AM

J Mysterio wrote: »

There should be riots and protest.

There will be. It'll be Poll Tax meets Miners Strike before this is over.

solodeogloria · 24-11-2017 09:26AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Okay, so lets examine some of the reasons why the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. There have been attempts to engage solo on some of this but any position that he doesn't agree with or doesn't want to deal with is waved away or ignored.

Immigration to the UK. The rules currently permit a country to remove a person after 6 months of their arrival in a member state if they haven't found work. Was the UK public aware of this? Why is this not being enforced in the UK? How is this a EU problem if the UK ignores this provision?

Trade agreements, the UK cannot sign trade agreements with other countries. This assumes that somehow the UK will be able to get better trade terms on their own and also that the UK doesn't have any say in trade agreements that the EU does have and is negotiating. As we have seen with links provided that one of the reasons there is no trade agreement with India at the moment is the UK holding back on demands for more open immigration from India. The UK has the power to block negotiations if it doesn't work for them in a trade agreement. I fail to see how this will change all of a sudden if the UK is free of the EU, will they open their borders or will the other nation just give in to the UK demands because (enter reason here that I cannot think of).

Sovereignty of laws. This is the other important detail in the campaign. Lets take back control of our laws, yet I have not seen any specific law that the EU has forced on the UK that it needs/wants to repeal. Now they may want to get rid of laws/regulations that irritate them (working hour rules) but those are for the paymasters and not the employees. The term, turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. Now if you can supply some laws that hindered the UK worker and economy (as compared to other EU nations that you would assume fall under these same laws as well) then I will be interested to see it. In any case there has been admission that the UK "remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU", but people didn't feel it.

The Brexit White Paper completely contradicts a key argument for Brexit

This is what happens when you give a free voice to the newspapers and there is no body to oversee if what they print is accurate. You get those in charge of those news organisations play with people's feelings and print misleading stories about the EU and people believe it.

The other important argument that was made was the £350m per week to the EU that should find the NHS instead. This was shown to be a lie not even 6 hours after the result was known. In fact it should have been known to be a lie during the campaign, but because you had lots of different people talking about leaving the EU they could always walk away from a slogan if it was the other campaign saying it. Nigel Farage doesn't have to account for the £350m per week as he didn't use it. Boris Johnson never had to muddy the waters with distasteful immigration propaganda as Nigel was doing it for him. Neither would call out the other on their tactics as they were fighting for the same side, so there was no accountability.

So there we have what I consider to be the main arguments that was made in favour of leaving the EU. All of those points can easily be shown to be either a lie or at least there is scope from being in the EU to change the circumstances to provide better "protection" for yourself from some elements of being part of the EU. That is on the previous people in charge in the UK and not the EU.

Good morning!

I've replied to you on all of these points before. It isn't honest to say that I haven't.

Going round and round and round in circles isn't helpful. To a degree rehashing the referendum isn't helpful. The matter is settled - the UK is leaving the EU. What isn't settled is how exactly this happens which is what the negotiation will settle.

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 24-11-2017 09:32AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

Nothing was settled - the referendum result raised more questions than it answered, because no-one actually expected it to pass..

Samaris · 24-11-2017 09:32AM

I've come around to the sea border. It's a terrible option, but the land border is catastropic.

Ireland is going to be brutalised by this insane plunge off the cliff.

By the way, the irony of "We must take back our borders!", followed by "Well, the only land border is in Ireland and it's worse for them so your problem, guys!", is grimly amusing. It rather does show up the mendaciousness of the position.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2017 10:07AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Going round and round and round in circles isn't helpful. To a degree rehashing the referendum isn't helpful. The matter is settled - the UK is leaving the EU. What isn't settled is how exactly this happens which is what the negotiation will settle.

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

I take the point about rehashing the referendum. But, if we're asking the question "what kind of Brexit is the UK to have?" (or, at any rate, to seek to have - whether they'll have it or not is not entirely within their control) I don't think it's altogether possible to answer that without revisiting the referendum campaign. To the extent that the UK voted for, e.g. the Brexit that would give the NHS 350 million per week, or the Brexit that would enable the UK to construct a network of free trade deals better than the one it currently has, those Brexits do not exist, and never will. The UK will not have them. The UK is therefore to be given a Brexit that, in these respects, is not the Brexit that they voted for, and the responsibility for determining what kind of Brexit that will be lies with Parliament.

That's a bit scary, obviously, if you're Parliament, since you can expect a certain amount of, um, backlash from people who don't like the Brexit that you serve them up. And it's even more scary if, like Parliament, your dominant view is that Brexit in any form is a bad thing for the UK anyway. Whatever you do, some people will denounce it as a bad thing and, in your heart, you'll agree with them, even if for different reasons. That's a pretty depressing prospect.

At some point, Parliament has to decide who to disappoint, who to frustrate, who to "betray", to borrow the language of the Daily Mail. Understandably, they want to put evil day off as long as possible. Hence the general reluctance to stop prevaricating between different objectives and start deciding which to pursue and which to abandon. But the scope for this is pretty much running out around now.

Leroy42 · 24-11-2017 10:49AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've replied to you on all of these points before. It isn't honest to say that I haven't.

Going round and round and round in circles isn't helpful. To a degree rehashing the referendum isn't helpful. The matter is settled - the UK is leaving the EU. What isn't settled is how exactly this happens which is what the negotiation will settle.

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So would you be happy with a negotiated divorce bill of £100bn, open borders, staying in the CU and staying within the jurisdiction of the ECJ? What about giving Gibraltar to Spain so as not to damage their economy?

Or does Brexit mean Brexit?

May can't even work out whether the sovereign parliament, over which the UK seem so precious should even have a vote on the deal. And according to the Telegraph/Mail etc, no MP should be allowed to voice any dissent over the process. A sovereign parliament told what to say and do by the media!

Therein lies the problem. Nobody in the UK really knows what they voted for. You just have to look at the uproar over the divorce bill payment. This was always going to be payable, sop why is it even an issue.

murphaph · 24-11-2017 11:00AM

Not looking good for UK air travel post Brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/e7674638-d078-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

Basically it says when you leave the SM you leave the SM. No special deal seems to be being considered.

When will the British public wake up?!

solodeogloria · 24-11-2017 11:16AM

murphaph wrote: »

Not looking good for UK air travel post Brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/e7674638-d078-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

Basically it says when you leave the SM you leave the SM. No special deal seems to be being considered.

When will the British public wake up?!

Good morning!

Did you even read the whole article?

A second co-operation model outlined is based on the Common Aviation Area agreements with Georgia and Moldova. That model would only require partial application of EU law and no EU court rulings — more acceptable conditions for the UK government.

But the commission argues that in this case, UK operators would be allowed to operate flights to or from EU destinations only if they start or end in Britain, the so-called third and fourth freedoms of the air. EU ownership restrictions would also apply.

The third model identified by the commission negotiators would offer the type of market access enjoyed by US or Canadian airlines. These include lighter regulatory obligations and no role for European courts.

There are very clearly other options that can be agreed to ensure flights from Britain into the EU continue post-Brexit even according to this article.

I agree that EU27 to EU27 will have to be conducted by European owned carriers, but this is a reasonable cost. I have no issue with the EU insisting on this rule.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So would you be happy with a negotiated divorce bill of £100bn, open borders, staying in the CU and staying within the jurisdiction of the ECJ? What about giving Gibraltar to Spain so as not to damage their economy?

None of these outcomes are acceptable. That's why there is a negotiation rather than a broad acceptance of diktats.

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments