nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lawred2

branie2 wrote: »

Being discussed on Claire Byrne live now

Helen McEntee talks a lot without saying much at all.

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont think you read my post or the context at all in the scramble to find Brexiteers under the bed. The other poster was suggesting that requiring a customs check for UK goods at Irish ports to ensure the integrity of the customs union woild require carrying out such checks on all Irish exports, in an attempt to exaggerate the amount of checks that would actually have to be done to ensure the integrity of the customs union i.e. those from the UK into the EU via Ireland. Goods destined for Iran, for example, wouldnt need this check in order to comply with common market rules.

And you still don't seem to understand that if we are no longer part of the EU customs union and single market, but piggy-backed onto the UK, then all of our exports will either need to be checked to see that the comply with common market rules (because the EU will undoubtedly prohibt Iran from trading with third countries on more favourable terms/less stringent standards than they're offering) or be checked to comply with the British standard. Ireland will need to invest in additional customs personnel to maintain two different standards - exactly what's going to cost the Brits dearly in the near future.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

People in other EU member states are already eating Argentinian and Brazilian beef etc. But leaving that aside, yes you cant test everything. What you can do is test enough, and make non compliancw suficiently punitive, that the level of non compliance is acceptably low.

The reason I mention the horsemeat scandal is precisely to illustrate that point. You can never have 100% control of a market or of standards. All you can do is impose a robust regulatory regieme to ensure compliance. Which is a lot easier to do in a few well managed ports than it is kn a 500km meandering land border

No, you can't ever have 100% compliance, but the more people you have doing the sampling, the easier it is to spot non-compliance somewhere in the supply chain (e.g. the Irish finding that there was a problem in France). Moreover, if you widen the number of goods that need to be checked, and increase the complexity of the standards with which they must comply - which is what your proposal involves - then you will inevitably require greater numbers of inspectors (= more cost) or a reduction in the efficiency of the checks.

Most of all, though, you're still ignoring the damage that would be done to Ireland's reputation if something slipped through. Remember BSE? That was a problem that began in the UK, and although it's spread to Ireland was limited and ultimately controlled, it's effect on Irish beef exports lasted years and years and years. Protocols were put in place to make sure that such a catastophe "never" happened again, and similar measures have been established in respect of thousands of different products across hundreds of sectors of European industry. Yet you think that we should sacrifice those protections, and that global trading advantage, to throw our lot in with the UK for no reason other than to give them an easy time over Brexit?

We can have our cake and eat it if we stand firm with our EU allies until such time as the British come to their senses and accept that Northern Ireland is socially, politically, economically and geographically separate to Great Britain, and an Irish Sea border is the simplest way to give England her independence.

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

Helen McEntee talks a lot without saying much at all.

She's pretty good at what she does, and knows when to be diplomatic I suppose.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

She's pretty good at what she does, and knows when to be diplomatic I suppose.

Blushing after taking a roasting from the guy in the audience didn't help her case. She struck me as underbriefed and told to tow a certain line.

lawred2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Blushing after taking a roasting from the guy in the audience didn't help her case. She struck me as underbriefed and told to tow a certain line.

Also her answer to that British lad was odd... Why didn't she ask him had he investigate acquiring Irish citizenship? He may have been here long enough for naturalisation

kowtow

Water John wrote: »

Kowtow, the UK Govn'ts own document expect between 13 and 25% of goods to get shipped cross channel. That sounds like a much bigger problem than a few minutes delay or a payment to an agent.

I'm not disagreeing (although there do seem to be a lot of different stories coming out of Dover / Calais)... we were only talking about the limited case of shipping household possessions cross border in EU (or ex-EU)

Plenty of chaos elsewhere - for a time at least - if no deal is the outcome, although I have a sneaky feeling it won't be. If I had to bet money it would still be on May's deal (more or less) but with some sort of movement on the backstop.

BorneTobyWilde

The only way the Brexit deal is going to be modified by next Tuesdays vote is by putting the word ''Modified '' in front of the current deal.
Her plan B is Plan A

smurgen

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The only way the Brexit deal is going to be modified by next Tuesdays vote is by putting the word ''Modified '' in front of the current deal.
Her plan B is Plan A

I'm nearly fully confident it's a crash out at this stage.they seem to be getting more divided as time goes on.impossible to negotiate with people who cannot agree with themselves.it's going to be extremely interesting to see how it all pans out.i just hope the tories and the likes of jrm and borris take the blame from joe bloggs on the street rather than the EU being scapegoated

briany

Let's assume for a minute that it will definitely a crash out - the sky over the UK will not turn blood red at 11.00pm on March 29th, but at what point in the following year is the average UK citizen going to notice the UK's new relationship to the EU having a significant effect on their day to day lives?

Capt'n Midnight

smurgen wrote: »

I'm nearly fully confident it's a crash out at this stage

IMHO we need to make it very clear that if they try to throw us off a cliff, we're taking them with us. Fight blackmail with blackmail.

If they want a Hard Brexit, they'll get one, courtesy of our veto.

If they want a good trade deal with the EU, there had better be something worth while for us in it and it won't be cheap.

But it won't come to that because they can't be that stupid ?

Capt'n Midnight

briany wrote: »

Let's assume for a minute that it will definitely a crash out - the sky over the UK will not turn blood red at 11.00pm on March 29th, but at what point in the following year is the average UK citizen going to notice the UK's new relationship to the EU having a significant effect on their day to day lives?

Technically speaking the sky was blood red last night

Hard to know , a lot depends on how much the EU accommodates them for the benefit of EU citizens.

The financial impact of the Sterling falling to close to the Euro would be the big one. Austerity would continue. If you are rich you'll pay for "taking back control". If you are just getting by, things just aren't getting better for the foreseeable future.

branie2

On omen perhaps?

johnnyskeleton

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Care to explain why in your book it's ok to separate Ireland from world by putting a border on Irish Sea and pulling us out of EU
But it is not ok for NI which does a fraction of our trade to have a border in Irish Sea and still remain in UK
?

For the last time I never said that Ireland would leave the EU. If you dont understand that the location of customs checks is not automatically where the territorial border is, then I cant help you.7 To answer the second part, if you want to know why its not ok for Northern Ireland, look up the Troubles and you will soon see why no one wants to return to that, except those who advocate a no deal brexit and a border on the island of Ireland

johnnyskeleton

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IMHO we need to make it very clear that if they try to throw us off a cliff, we're taking them with us. Fight blackmail with blackmail.

If they want a Hard Brexit, they'll get one, courtesy of our veto.

If they want a good trade deal with the EU, there had better be something worth while for us in it and it won't be cheap.

But it won't come to that because they can't be that stupid ?

Or both sides could try to find a compromise, avoiding digging their heels in jnless its absolutely necessary. If the UK behaves appallingly, its no reason for the EU to respond in kind when theh can take the high road.

Infini

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or both sides could try to find a compromise, avoiding digging their heels in jnless its absolutely necessary. If the UK behaves appallingly, its no reason for the EU to respond in kind when theh can take the high road.

There's the problem though the conservatives are full of fools who refused to grasp this. They want everything their way or the highway that's how they've ended up in the trap of their own making.

A hard brexit wont sink us but the collateral damage to other area's would make plenty here have little time for the UK until they came to their senses.

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or both sides could try to find a compromise, avoiding digging their heels in jnless its absolutely necessary. If the UK behaves appallingly, its no reason for the EU to respond in kind when theh can take the high road.

Both sides have tried to find a compromise. That compromise is the backstop set out in the Withdrawal Agreement.

And the EU has always made it clear that other compromises are possible, but this one has emerged from an attempt to respect the UK's red lines. If the UK wants another and, from its point of view, better compromise, the necessary first step is for the UK to shift its red lines. This isn't something within the EU's gift.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing (although there do seem to be a lot of different stories coming out of Dover / Calais)... we were only talking about the limited case of shipping household possessions cross border in EU (or ex-EU)

Plenty of chaos elsewhere - for a time at least - if no deal is the outcome, although I have a sneaky feeling it won't be. If I had to bet money it would still be on May's deal (more or less) but with some sort of movement on the backstop.

I don't think there's scope for more than token movement on the backstop. I mean, like, really obviously token movement.

There's more scope for movement on the Political Declaration, and this could be movement aimed not so much at altering the backstop (which the PD can't do; the WA prevails over the PD) as maximising the chances that the backstop will not come into operation.

Couple of thoughts:

1. At no point in her statement to the Commons does May talk about reopening the Withdrawal Agreement. Suggests she knows that this is a non-runner.

2. Most of the movement to make any change to the PD has to be on the UK side, since it's the UK red lines (leaving customs union; no single market; no ECJ jurisdiction) that are the problem here. May needs to be prepared not to drop these red lines, but to create (more) exceptions to them where this is necessary to prevent the backstop kicking in.

3. Interesting that May has specifically mentioned that she will talk to the DUP, and she has framed the issue as "how we might meet our obligations to the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland". Suggests that she intends to frame this as an Irish issue, and by doing to prioritise views of the DUP over those of the ERG.

4. Bottom line for the DUP is that they don’t want NI treated any differently from rest of the UK. They’d prefer hard Brexit to soft Brexit, but this is a second-order issue for them, so long as Brexit is uniform across the UK. So, logically, they should support softening of red lines across the whole UK to the extent necessary to prevent the backstop taking effect. But note that this reasoning does not apply to ERG, whose priorities are reversed; hard Brexit is most important to them.

5. The WA was, of course, voted down by a majority of 230 votes, only 10 of which came from the DUP, so focussing on the DUP looks, on the face of it, not sufficient to change matters. But May's hope is, reportedly, that if she can swing the DUP round to supporting her deal, the bulk of the Tory party ultra-Brexiters can be got to follow.

6. My own view, FWIW, is that this strategy (if it is her strategy) will not succeed. If May prioritises DUP over ERG and persuades DUP towards softer Brexit, ERG will not come in on the DUP coattails. More likely she will simply drive a wedge between DUP and ERG, but that won’t get her where she wants to be.

7. So important question becomes, what is May’s Plan C? If she secures the assent of the DUP but not of the ERG, the deal will be voted down again, and at that point May has to decide whether she will hew towards crash-out Brexit, or opt for revoking Art 50 or trying for a second referendum. From here point of view these are all appalling options; but she will just has to choose which is the least appalling.

downcow

Do many on here genuinely not understand or are they pretending to not get it. How is it ok to put checks right through the middle of a country (Irish Sea) but not ok to have any checks whatsoever at an international border (roi / NI)??

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Do many on here genuinely not understand or are they pretending to not get it. How is it ok to put checks right through the middle of a country (Irish Sea) but not ok to have any checks whatsoever at an international border (roi / NI)??

There are checks in the Irish Sea right now. And there have been heavier checks in the past. How can you possibly not know this? The notion that such checks are some kind of constitutional outrage was only invented because it was politically convenient for the ultra-Brexiters.

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are checks in the Irish Sea right now. And there have been heavier checks in the past. How can you possibly not know this? The notion that such checks are some kind of constitutional outrage was only invented because it was politically convenient for the ultra-Brexiters.

Are you purposely not answering the question I was asking. And of course I know there are differences in UK regions and biosecurity checks etc at Irish Sea. My point is why this is ok for remainers but it is abhorrent to have any checks at international border?
And how can you not know that there are currently checks at the roi/ NI border?

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

Are you purposely not answering the question I was asking. And of course I know there are differences in UK regions and biosecurity checks etc at Irish Sea. My point is why this is ok for remainers but it is abhorrent to have any checks at international border?
And how can you not know that there are currently checks at the roi/ NI border?

You have never given even the slightest indication that you have learnt something from posting here, or have changed your mind on something.

Perigrinus, don't waste your time. He is only here to do just that and turn another 20 pages into drivel.

downcow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have never given even the slightest indication that you have learnt something from posting here, or have changed your mind on something.

Perigrinus, don't waste your time. He is only here to do just that and turn another 20 pages into drivel.

This post demonstrates exactly my point. Some on here have zero self awareness, sadly

Peregrinus

Well, if your question is "how is it OK not to have checks at an international border?", the answer is obvious; it's been that way for 25 years, and the sky hasn't fallen yet, so clearly it's OK.

If your question is "why is it abhorrent for remainers?", I think you have to start by explaining why you choose to phrase the question this way. "No hard border" is a stated objective of that well known remainer conspiracy, Her Majesty's Government. A "frictionless border" is even a manifesto commitment of the DUP (in their 2017 GE manifesto). Everybody sees problems with a hardening of the border. (Almost everybody; see below.) But the fact that you choose - or have been duped - into framing this as a "remainer" issue just underlines my point; outrage over measures to keep the border open has been manufactured, and is being hijacked, by those who seek to retrospectively shape Brexit as a hard brexit, rather than the Brexit offered to UK voters by the Leave campaigners; it is they who position those who care about a hard border as "remainers".

If you rephrase the question in less loaded terms as "why is it abhorrent to so many people?", I think you must already know the answer. A hard border cuts away the ground the Good Friday Agreement stands on, impedes implementation of Strand II, frustrates the GFA objective of normalisation, hugely damages social and economic cohesion in border areas, inflicts economic harm, and fundamentally attacks the principle of parity of esteem. And that's before we consider any security implications.

English ultra-Brexiters, of course, are unbothered by any of this; injury to Ireland or the Irish is not something they factor into their decision-making process. But I am puzzled why anybody in Ireland would drink the Brexiter kool-aid to the extent of not seeing any of this, or seeing it but not caring about it.

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if your question is "how is it OK not to have checks at an international border?", the answer is obvious; it's been that way for 25 years, and the sky hasn't fallen yet, so clearly it's OK.

If your question is "why is it abhorrent for remainers?", I think you have to start by explaining why you choose to phrase the question this way. "No hard border" is a stated objective of that well known remainer conspiracy, Her Majesty's Government. A "frictionless border" is even a manifesto commitment of the DUP (in their 2017 GE manifesto). Everybody sees problems with a hardening of the border. (Almost everybody; see below.) But the fact that you choose - or have been duped - into framing this as a "remainer" issue just underlines my point; outrage over measures to keep the border open has been manufactured, and is being hijacked, by those who seek to retrospectively shape Brexit as a hard brexit, rather than the Brexit offered to UK voters by the Leave campaigners; it is they who position those who care about a hard border as "remainers".

If you rephrase the question in less loaded terms as "why is it abhorrent to some people?", I think you must already know the answer. A hard border cuts away the ground the Good Friday Agreement stands on, impedes implementation of Strand II, frustrates the GFA objective of normalisation, hugely damages social and economic cohesion in border areas, inflicts economic harm, and fundamentally attacks the principle of parity of esteem. And that's before we consider any security implications.

English ultra-Brexiters, of course, are unbothered by any of this; injury to Ireland or the Irish is not something they factor into their decision-making process. But I am puzzled why anybody in Ireland would drink the Brexiter kool-aid to the extent of not seeing any of this, or not caring about it.

I accept some of what you say. Unfortunately you scold me for how I frame my question and then evidence this by spinning what I said to mean ‘hard border’ - I never use this term because no one will tell me what constitutes hard and soft borders. Anyhow enough on my frustrations with you misrepresenting what I asked.
Can you not see my serious point I am a unionist (yes we are still the significant majority up here). I absolutely want to accommodate my nationalist friends and neighbours. But so many on here only care about how the Irish in the north feel with no concern whatsoever us brits feel. I could use your emotional paragraph above fairly much word for word to describe the downsides to my community of tieing us into an arrangement that detaches us from the rest of our country ie Uk.
Let me say this with genuine respect ‘try to put yourself in my shoes’. I am trying to put myself in you thinking but it is not easy.

Zubeneschamali

Scoondal wrote: »

UK can exit A50 and a couple of days later trigger A50 again. They get another 2 years as a member of EU. It is possible.

Or better still, they could withdraw the A50 notice and then not trigger it again until they have an agreed plan. Which will never happen, so happy days.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

at what point in the following year is the average UK citizen going to notice the UK's new relationship to the EU having a significant effect on their day to day lives?

Assuming that the UK Government decides to keep calm and carry on:

Within a month there will be empty shelves in Tesco and rationing at pharmacies and hospitals, troops protecting Government stockpiles.

Within two, there will be simple food rationing in shops (like one loaf per customer) and troops on the streets.

I'd say the riots will start in month three.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

I accept some of what you say. Unfortunately you scold me for how I frame my question and then evidence this by spinning what I said to mean ‘hard border’ - I never use this term because no one will tell me what constitutes hard and soft borders. Anyhow enough on my frustrations with you misrepresenting what I asked.
Can you not see my serious point I am a unionist (yes we are still the significant majority up here). I absolutely want to accommodate my nationalist friends and neighbours. But so many on here only care about how the Irish in the north feel with no concern whatsoever us brits feel. I could use your emotional paragraph above fairly much word for word to describe the downsides to my community of tieing us into an arrangement that detaches us from the rest of our country ie Uk.
Let me say this with genuine respect ‘try to put yourself in my shoes’. I am trying to put myself in you thinking but it is not easy.

OK. I get this. A few thoughts.

1. What NI actually wants is no hard(er) border either between NI and RoI or between NI and GB. That, obviously, would be the best outcome for NI, and I think Unionists and Nationalists would both feel that.

2. That, I suspect, is the reason, or a part of the reason, why NI voted to Remain.

3. I admit to harbouring the unworthy suspicion that there may be some in NI who voted to Leave because, contrary to what I say above, they actually do want a hard(er) border with RoI, or other concrete measures which in some way elevate or prioritise British identity/connections with GB over Irish identity/connections with RoI. I’m talking here, obviously, of people who dislike the GFA and the settlement constructed upon it. I could be wrong. I hope I am.

4. Even given the Leave outcome of the referendum, it was still possible to proceed with Brexit on terms that didn’t require either border to be hardened, but the choice was made not to do that.

5. Right. Leaving unionism and nationalism aside, and trying to be dispassionate, if NI is to be forced into a situation where it must choose between a hard(er) border with RoI and a hard(er) border with GB, which should it prefer? I’d argue that it should prioritise keeping open the border with Ireland because, for a variety of reasons, the harder border with GB, unwelcome as it is, does less damage to NI, to the GFA and to the peace settlement than the harder border with RoI. It’s the lesser of two evils. (I can expand on this if you want.)

6. All the signs are that public opinion in NI favours the backstop, which suggests that I’m not alone in that analysis.

7. Still, regardless of which choice is eventually made, I think people in NI - nationalist or unionist - are entitled to be angry that they are forced to put up with the lesser evil when they didn’t have to be faced with any evil at all. Even if NI were allowed to choose which evil they consider the lesser (and, NB, you probably won’t be) NI is still damaged by the process and the outcome. And, if I were a unionist, I’d be feeling very strongly that (a) this is not good for the Union, and (b) the people who have forced NI into this position are playing fast and loose with the Union.

8. There’s a couple of issues here:

(a) In the decision to hold a Brexit referendum, and in the framing and conduct of the referendum, no thought was given to the particular concerns of NI, or to the health of the Union. (And this is true of the Union with Scotland and well as the Union with NI.) Those who attempted to raise such concerns were ignored or marginalised.

(b) After the referendum, given the nature of the Leave campaign, HMG had a wide discretion as to the kind of Brexit it would seek to implement. They didn’t have to choose a form of Brexit that must damage NI and that must damage the Union; a Brexit that would force the choice of which border to harden - other models were available. But they chose it anyway. And they chose that not in the interests of the UK (obviously) or even in the interests of Great Britain or of England, but in the interests of trying to avoid a split in the Tory party.

(c) The lesson from all this is how little NI counts for in the deliberations and decisions of at least the present UK government. And, obviously, that’s a lesson that, once taken on board, must tend to damage the Union. It’s richly ironic that the Conservative and Unionist Party, in alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party, has done more to damage and weaken the Union in three years than the IRA managed in thirty, but that’s how it is. I’d expect unionists to be depressed, angry and resentful of that.

9. So, putting myself in the shoes of a unionist, as you suggest, how do I think a unionist should feel? Three thoughts:

- First, it may be a bit late now, but on the question of Brexit a unionist should either have adopted a remainer position or favoured a Brexit that did not put NI in the present invidious position. Or a unionist could have been a remainer in the referendum campaign and then pivoted to favouring such a Brexit in light of the result.

- Secondly, as already suggested, a unionist is entitled to feel angry at the disdain for NI, and for the health and well-being of the Union, shown by HMG and by the Leave movement.

- Thirdly, we are where we are. If a choice must be made, a unionist should favour keeping the RoI border open and accepting a hardening of the GB border because (a) this does less immediate damage and (b) the hardening of the GB border will be less permanent; it will be easier to remedy in years to come. And both of these are, on balance, better outcomes for the Union.

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

Do many on here genuinely not understand or are they pretending to not get it. How is it ok to put checks right through the middle of a country (Irish Sea) but not ok to have any checks whatsoever at an international border (roi / NI)??

It is a calculated risk. If there is a border on the island then there will be violence. If there is a border in the Irish Sea there may be violence. I prefer to not have to worry in addition to what economic impact the UK will force on us on my personal safety. The world is off tilt already without having to worry about that.

downcow wrote: »

I accept some of what you say. Unfortunately you scold me for how I frame my question and then evidence this by spinning what I said to mean ‘hard border’ - I never use this term because no one will tell me what constitutes hard and soft borders. Anyhow enough on my frustrations with you misrepresenting what I asked.
Can you not see my serious point I am a unionist (yes we are still the significant majority up here). I absolutely want to accommodate my nationalist friends and neighbours. But so many on here only care about how the Irish in the north feel with no concern whatsoever us brits feel. I could use your emotional paragraph above fairly much word for word to describe the downsides to my community of tieing us into an arrangement that detaches us from the rest of our country ie Uk.
Let me say this with genuine respect ‘try to put yourself in my shoes’. I am trying to put myself in you thinking but it is not easy.

Result - Remain 56% - Leave 44%. There is your political mandate on what is best for your country. As for your voice and concern, please don't worry as the DUP has the government right where they want them. Nothing can realistically be done without their say and that is why we are where we are.

As for seeing it from your point of view, let me say that nationality is a feeling more than anything else. If you feel less British because you have to go through customs checks when you travel to the UK then that is up to you and you alone. I don't know whether the people in France feel less French due to the EU, or people in Germany feel less German because of rules being made in Brussels instead of Berlin. It shouldn't because where rules are made doesn't change who you are. If you feel British then you will always be British whether there is a border in the sea or on land.

murphaph

downcow wrote: »

I accept some of what you say. Unfortunately you scold me for how I frame my question and then evidence this by spinning what I said to mean ‘hard border’ - I never use this term because no one will tell me what constitutes hard and soft borders. Anyhow enough on my frustrations with you misrepresenting what I asked.
Can you not see my serious point I am a unionist (yes we are still the significant majority up here). I absolutely want to accommodate my nationalist friends and neighbours. But so many on here only care about how the Irish in the north feel with no concern whatsoever us brits feel. I could use your emotional paragraph above fairly much word for word to describe the downsides to my community of tieing us into an arrangement that detaches us from the rest of our country ie Uk.
Let me say this with genuine respect ‘try to put yourself in my shoes’. I am trying to put myself in you thinking but it is not easy.

Nationalists by and large did not vote for this mess. The protestant, unionist people did. Brexit was close run. Those votes mattered immensely in getting Brexit over the line. Now you are crying over milk your people spilled themselves.

LeinsterDub

downcow wrote: »

I am a unionist (yes we are still the significant majority up here).

I feel you mean an ever decreasing majority. Which according to some polls won't exist post a hard brexit.