Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

robinph · 23-12-2019 04:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

52:48 was 2016.

The General Election of 2019 settled the Brexit Question. The electorate have asked Johnson -- with a thumping majority -- to get it sorted in any concievable way.

Even arch-Remainer Lord Heseltine conceded defeat and accepted that Brexit must now happen. The People's Vote Campaign is dead.

It's not a deadline in a negotiation, it's simply adhering to the deadline that the EU agreed. Both the EU and Johnson agreed that the 31 Dec. 2020 is the exit date. Johnson is saying that it will be the exit date regardless of the outcome in negotiations.

That's a strong message to the electorate to suggest that he means what he's saying.

How does a 40% vote for one party resulting in 60% of the power in the HoC translate as the "will of the people" for example?

Yes it was a thumping majority, but in no way does it mean that Johnson has support of the population for whatever he is about to do. The removal of the possibility of an extension seems more of a threat to the population to not dare do anything to me, it's certainly of no consequence to the EU.

Don't see how Johnson could lose an 80+ seat majority in 12 months, but he did manage to drop 40 seats within three months didn't he? The "strong message to the electorate that he means what he's saying" does not seem like a good thing to be saying to an electorate where the majority didn't vote for your vision.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2019 04:41PM

robinph wrote: »

But despite the fact that the majority of people voted for non-brexit parties in the election last week the narrative has been to suggest that the population now matches the 60%+ brexit make up of the HoC. It doesn't.

Not wanting to get side tracked again on this issue, but the results were:

Pro Brexit
Conservative 43.7 (inc speaker) 365 (ex speaker)
DUP 0.8 8
Brexit Party 2.0
UKIP 0.1
TOTAL 46.6% 373 seats

Anti-Brexit
Lib Dem 11.6 11
SNP 3.9 48
Green 2.8 (inc Scottish Green) 1
Plaid 0.5 4
SDLP 0.4 2
Alliance 0.4 1
TOTAL 19.1% 67 Seats

Neutral/Unclear/Absentionist
Labour 32.1 202
SF 0.6 7
Others/Indep 1.6
TOTAL 34.3% 209 Seats

So there were more than double the votes for Brexit parties than anti Brexit parties, even if you add SF to anti Brexit. Even if you say that 3/4 of Labour can be counted as anti Brexit (which is probably generous), that still doesn't give a remain majority in the last election. And the Pro Brexit seats make up 56% which is still a lot, but is not more than 60%

CelticRambler · 23-12-2019 04:48PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Also I think in order to get a pet passport the owner must show that the pet has been vaccinated against rabies which is still a problem in some Continental areas.

There's more to it than that, but the point is that in implementing the system, the UK demonstrated how much nonsense is spouted about the EU. At the time, there were no EU rules stopping dogs from coming into the UK. There were UK laws, established by the UK government and enforced by UK officials. One day, someone in the UK woke up and decided that maybe things didn't need to continue on the way they were, and (after much consultation with UK citizens and other UK-based interest groups) they rolled out the scheme.
Fast forward a few years and the EU saw that it was a Jolly Good Thing, completely coherent with EU objectives, and a process that could be extended to pet-owners across all member states; and this little bit of UK-drafted legislation became EU legislation.

The same thing is happening in all 28 countries - local EU communities finding sensible solutions to their problems, which evolve to become sensible processes that everyone can benefit from. Ireland's exercise of national sovereignty over the zero-VAT-rating of tampons is another example.

Come Jan 31st/Dec 31st, the UK will reclaim the right it never lost to make its own laws, but lose the opportunity to shape those of the 27 countries its divorcing from. And then have to comply with their rules anyway.

robinph · 23-12-2019 04:50PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So there were more than double the votes for Brexit parties than anti Brexit parties, even if you add SF to anti Brexit. Even if you say that 3/4 of Labour can be counted as anti Brexit (which is probably generous), that still doesn't give a remain majority in the last election. And the Pro Brexit seats make up 56% which is still a lot, but is not more than 60%

Which is why they should have had a 2nd referendum on the matter when they had the chance and not allowed a fupping stupid thing like a general election to happen which clearly doesn't answer the question that Johnson was trying to ask.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2019 04:56PM

robinph wrote: »

Which is why they should have had a 2nd referendum on the matter when they had the chance and not allowed a fupping stupid thing like a general election to happen which clearly doesn't answer the question that Johnson was trying to ask.

Perhaps, but unfortunately the arguments used by the remain side prior to the election e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, using the courts is part of the system etc, is now being used against them. If it was previously the done thing for Parliament, and not the people, to make the ultimate call on Brexit, they can't now say that Parliament shouldn't do its job.

To be honest, I've made my peace with Brexit now, and all we can do is mitigate the damage.

Enzokk · 23-12-2019 05:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The General Election of 2019 settled the Brexit Question.

robinph wrote: »

Which is why they should have had a 2nd referendum on the matter when they had the chance and not allowed a fupping stupid thing like a general election to happen which clearly doesn't answer the question that Johnson was trying to ask.

You don't answer a yes or no question with a general election where so much more comes into play, even if one issue dominates the election cycle. It would be like Ireland holding a GE to answer the same sex marriage and abortion questions. It is madness and the Tories knew it and the Lib Dems spaffed it up the wall by agreeing to an election. I can sort of understand the SNP doing it as either result would have suited them. Remain parties win a majority and they get to ask the question again, Johnson majority and Scottish Independence is on the table again.

I fail to see how Corbyn's apparent lack of leadership and competence for being PM and therefore putting voters off has anything to do with the answer to Brexit.

Strazdas · 23-12-2019 07:17PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not wanting to get side tracked again on this issue, but the results were:

Pro Brexit
Conservative 43.7 (inc speaker) 365 (ex speaker)
DUP 0.8 8
Brexit Party 2.0
UKIP 0.1
TOTAL 46.6% 373 seats

Anti-Brexit
Lib Dem 11.6 11
SNP 3.9 48
Green 2.8 (inc Scottish Green) 1
Plaid 0.5 4
SDLP 0.4 2
Alliance 0.4 1
TOTAL 19.1% 67 Seats

Neutral/Unclear/Absentionist
Labour 32.1 202
SF 0.6 7
Others/Indep 1.6
TOTAL 34.3% 209 Seats

So there were more than double the votes for Brexit parties than anti Brexit parties, even if you add SF to anti Brexit. Even if you say that 3/4 of Labour can be counted as anti Brexit (which is probably generous), that still doesn't give a remain majority in the last election. And the Pro Brexit seats make up 56% which is still a lot, but is not more than 60%

The 47.3% for the Conservatives may well have included many Remain supporters. Opinion polls in 2017 suggested that a third of Conservative supporters in that year's GE had voted Remain in the referendum. They may simply have regarded Corbyn as too toxic this year and a vote for the fading Lib Dems as a completely wasted vote.

CelticRambler · 23-12-2019 07:27PM

I find it mildly amusing how so many Brexit-supporters are using Johnson's majority to justify a gung-ho Brexit, arguing that everyone knew that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Brexit ... and yet they were the most vociferous opponents of asking the simple "Brexit - yes or no" question for a second time.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2019 07:42PM

Strazdas wrote: »

The 47.3% for the Conservatives may well have included many Remain supporters. Opinion polls in 2017 suggested that a third of Conservative supporters in that year's GE had voted Remain in the referendum. They may simply have regarded Corbyn as too toxic this year and a vote for the fading Lib Dems as a completely wasted vote.

Remain supporters, yes of course there were some. But they still voted for leave candidates in a leave party. Any MP that was in favour of remaining was kicked out of the party and didn't get reelected as an independent.

So, insofar as it is suggested that remain parties won the popular vote, that is not correct.

23-12-2019 07:55PM

The inimitable Ann Widdecombe made a powerful point in the EU chamber earlier - namely, that EU law prevents the nation-state from banning live export of animals. It was tried in one part of the UK, and EU law overruled the decision and re-imposed the live export of animals rule.

She's right; this is one example among many of why the nation-state must choose her own laws and legislative destiny.

fash · 23-12-2019 08:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The inimitable Ann Widdecombe made a powerful point in the EU chamber earlier - namely, that EU law prevents the nation-state from banning live export of animals. It was tried in one part of the UK, and EU law overruled the decision and re-imposed the live export of animals rule.

She's right; this is one example among many of why the nation-state must choose her own laws and legislative destiny.

Why should Ireland ban the export to NI? Why should England ban the export to Scotland, the isle of Man, or Jersey? If it doesn't ban the export to Jersey, why would it ban the export to France which is closer than either island?
I think we can all agree it would be best for everyone to do everything we can to finally cripple and dismember the evil UK- and that Brexit gives us that opportunity. They have done nothing less to Ireland- and they have continued to attempt to do so.
Brexit is an opportunity not to be missed to destroy one of the world's great evils - I'm sure you agree, Eskimohunt.

MrMusician18 · 23-12-2019 08:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The inimitable Ann Widdecombe made a powerful point in the EU chamber earlier - namely, that EU law prevents the nation-state from banning live export of animals. It was tried in one part of the UK, and EU law overruled the decision and re-imposed the live export of animals rule.

She's right; this is one example among many of why the nation-state must choose her own laws and legislative destiny.

Go on, give us a few more. If there are many it shouldn't be hard.

The best one I've heard was that the UK should leave because new appliances must be supplied with a new power cord.

Enzokk · 23-12-2019 08:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The inimitable Ann Widdecombe made a powerful point in the EU chamber earlier - namely, that EU law prevents the nation-state from banning live export of animals. It was tried in one part of the UK, and EU law overruled the decision and re-imposed the live export of animals rule.

She's right; this is one example among many of why the nation-state must choose her own laws and legislative destiny.

You and Ann Widdicombe are correct that current rules means you cannot make exporting of live animals illegal in the EU. But, say the UK trades on WTO rules, what does that say about live exports?

WTO rules and export bans
WTO rules limit countries' ability to ban imports or exports of goods.

This is the basis on which the UK ban would be challenged at the WTO, as the RSPCA pointed out in its 2018 briefing.

Also, if the UK banned live exports but still allowed the transport to continue between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, this would contravene the rule which prohibits WTO members from treating countries differently on trade in the same product.

General election 2019: Can the UK ban live animal exports after Brexit?

So I am not sure what the point is really.

CelticRambler · 23-12-2019 08:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

that EU law prevents the nation-state from banning live export of animals. It was tried in one part of the UK, and EU law overruled the decision and re-imposed the live export of animals rule.

She's right; this is one example among many of why the nation-state must choose her own laws and legislative destiny.

So you're in favour of banning the transport of horses from Ireland to the UK for Cheltenham, Aintree, Ascot, etc?

Well, I suppose that'd make things fairer for the UK stud industry. Shame no Brits wouldn't be able to compete in equestrian sports at the Olympics, though. Or host them.

Vive la nation-state.

GM228 · 23-12-2019 08:33PM

Enzokk wrote: »

You and Ann Widdicombe are correct that current rules means you cannot make exporting of live animals illegal in the EU. But, say the UK trades on WTO rules, what does that say about live exports?

General election 2019: Can the UK ban live animal exports after Brexit?

So I am not sure what the point is really.

+1, under Article XI of the WTOs General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) there can not be quantitative bans or restrictions on imports or exports.

In fact eskimohunt may not be aware (or chooses to ignore) that the European Parliament themselves have actually been pushing (since 2012) the Commission to move away from live exports and concentrate on the transport of meat, carcass and germinal products, but, noted the binding nature of WTO rules on the EU and it's states.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2019 09:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The inimitable Ann Widdecombe made a powerful point in the EU chamber earlier - namely, that EU law prevents the nation-state from banning live export of animals. It was tried in one part of the UK, and EU law overruled the decision and re-imposed the live export of animals rule.

She's right; this is one example among many of why the nation-state must choose her own laws and legislative destiny.

Why doesn't that youtube video show the reponse to the question? Maybe someone from the EU could have said something like:

"E.U. Animal Welfare sets down minimum standards for the live exports of animals. It makes it clear that national governments can impose higher standards than the E.U. minimum standards if they wish. In 2012 the UK High Court ruled that the banning of live exports by a local council breached UK and EU law. The UK High Court did not say, nor could it say, that it was not possible for the UK Parliament to ban live exports completely and justify it on the basis of animal welfare. It was simply ruling on the position as it stood when a UK local authority unilaterally decided to ban exports rather than leaving that to their national parliament."

Or maybe: "Where exactly does it say that E.U. law says that the U.K. Parliament CANNOT ban live exports? E.U. standards simply set the minimum welfare standards."

Or maybe: "Didn't the U.K. vote in favour of the E.U. Minimum standards? Why didn't they specifically argue to ban live exports at that stage, or seek an opt out of any rule that they percieved as preventing them from doing so?"

Or maybe: "British farmers make a lot of money exporting live animals, that's why they do it. If the British government want British farmers to lose this money, and lead to increased demand for other countries e.g. Ireland, then be our guest"

hotmail.com · 23-12-2019 10:11PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

I find it mildly amusing how so many Brexit-supporters are using Johnson's majority to justify a gung-ho Brexit, arguing that everyone knew that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Brexit ... and yet they were the most vociferous opponents of asking the simple "Brexit - yes or no" question for a second time.

Have you heard of the expression - flogging a dead horse?

AllForIt · 23-12-2019 10:47PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

I find it mildly amusing how so many Brexit-supporters are using Johnson's majority to justify a gung-ho Brexit, arguing that everyone knew that a vote for Johnson was a vote for Brexit ... and yet they were the most vociferous opponents of asking the simple "Brexit - yes or no" question for a second time.

I see some people are still living in fantasy land. Your statement is not so much mildly amusing but flat out hilarious. Even a Labour politician, a potential next Labour leader, stood up in parliament and said Boris does indeed have a mandate to get Brexit done. Why would the winners of a ref want another one? Absurd.

This is a great interview with David Stakey where he unpicks what happens over the last few years. Brutal and accurate. Put your fingers in your ears if you felt you were so right about Brexit that you felt justified in making every attempt possible to overturn it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7Yzy6Rqrmc

Btw, some posters on this thread would be better described as democracy supporters rather than Brexit supporters. It was right that remain was democratically denied a second referendum. Democracy isn't about getting what you want just cuz you demand it.

GM228 · 23-12-2019 11:07PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why doesn't that youtube video show the reponse to the question? Maybe someone from the EU could have said something like:

"E.U. Animal Welfare sets down minimum standards for the live exports of animals. It makes it clear that national governments can impose higher standards than the E.U. minimum standards if they wish. In 2012 the UK High Court ruled that the banning of live exports by a local council breached UK and EU law. The UK High Court did not say, nor could it say, that it was not possible for the UK Parliament to ban live exports completely and justify it on the basis of animal welfare. It was simply ruling on the position as it stood when a UK local authority unilaterally decided to ban exports rather than leaving that to their national parliament."

Or maybe: "Where exactly does it say that E.U. law says that the U.K. Parliament CANNOT ban live exports? E.U. standards simply set the minimum welfare standards."

Or maybe: "Didn't the U.K. vote in favour of the E.U. Minimum standards? Why didn't they specifically argue to ban live exports at that stage, or seek an opt out of any rule that they percieved as preventing them from doing so?"

Or maybe: "British farmers make a lot of money exporting live animals, that's why they do it. If the British government want British farmers to lose this money, and lead to increased demand for other countries e.g. Ireland, then be our guest"

To be fair the ECJ ruled twice in the 1990s that it was against EU law to ban the export of livestock (both cases were involving the UK).

I know one case was from 1998 involving the RSPCA and the Compassion in World Farming charity when they wanted a ban, and IIRC the other came about following the so called "Battle of Brightlingsea" in the mid 90s.

declanflynn · 23-12-2019 11:55PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

First, the General Election produced a decisive mandate for Brexit to be delivered and, with Johnson's majority, he has the mandate to do as he pleases.

Second, it's a welcome development that Johnson has outlawed and extension and vetoed the prospect of alignment with EU rules. If the EU don't budge, then that is fine. WTO Exit preparations will be fast-tracked over the coming 12-13 months to ensure that Britain leaves as smoothly as possible.

I don't believe the apocalyptic predictions either. I don't even think it will come close to that, perhaps a few hiccups here and there, but that's always the case in politics regardless.

britain is going to get a bad deal or no deal, the EU cannot be seen by other members to grand former members a lot of the benifits of membership.
The **** will hit the british fan when ordinary people realise they are worse off outside the EU, all the northern and Welsh who "lent" boris their vote will be rioting before the end of 2020.
There will be some pain for the EU and Ireland ahead, but we will enjoy it knowing the Brits are in excruciating pain.
Bring on "no deal".

reslfj · 24-12-2019 12:19AM

declanflynn wrote: »

britain is going to get a bad deal or no deal, the EU cannot be seen by other members to grand former members a lot of the benifits of membership.
The **** will hit the british fan when ordinary people realise they are worse off outside the EU, all the northern and Welsh who "lent" boris their vote will be rioting before the end of 2020.

The EU27 will not punish the UK over Brexit. But all Brexits are economically bad and in particular for the UK - and it will be felt in the UK.

The EU27 will demand that the UK pay and pay in full for all concessions the EU27 is asked to give. Some concessions will, however, simply be non negotiable with the EU as they could harm the SM/CU or be against the Treaties or EU's international obligations.
This may well hurt the UK badly, but the EU27 will protect all their members interests and the legal structure before UK interests are considered.

However, very little will happen in 2020. The transition period will basically make everything look like membership except UK influence and UK voting.

Lars

Strazdas · 24-12-2019 12:43AM

reslfj wrote: »

The EU27 will not punish the UK over Brexit. But all Brexits are economically bad and in particular for the UK - and it will be felt in the UK.

The EU27 will demand that the UK pay and pay in full for all concessions the EU27 is asked to give. Some concessions will, however, simply be non negotiable with the EU as they could harm the SM/CU or be against the Treaties or EU's international obligations.
This may well hurt the UK badly, but the EU27 will protect all their members interests and the legal structure before UK interests are considered.

However, very little will happen in 2020. The transition period will basically make everything look like membership except UK influence and UK voting.

Lars

I wouldn't rule out though the UK slowly slumping into quite a bad place economically whilst still nominally a member of the Single Market. It might be obvious to all by mid 2020 that things are not going well and there is no Brexit dividend.

johnnyskeleton · 24-12-2019 12:44AM

GM228 wrote: »

To be fair the ECJ ruled twice in the 1990s that it was against EU law to ban the export of livestock (both cases were involving the UK).

I know one case was from 1998 involving the RSPCA and the Compassion in World Farming charity when they wanted a ban, and IIRC the other came about following the so called "Battle of Brightlingsea" in the mid 90s.

Do you have any links to these cases? Ive only read the house of commons research on it and it doesnt have many specifics of EU law.

Edit: A quick read of the Compassion in world farming case suggests that it was more about banning exports to member states due to what those member states would do with the animals (i.e. veal crates) rather than the export of live animals themselves:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/%3Furi%3DCELEX:61996CJ0001%26from%3DIT&ved=2ahUKEwiAg5Gz-szmAhURWsAKHf4rA3QQFjAAegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw13m-qLqT3n-vt_ZXq5cDhm

I wonder would the ruling be different if they tried to justify a total ban on all live exports by ship on bosman principles

Spanish Eyes · 24-12-2019 12:54AM

Brexit is a construct of xenophobia and hubris.

So we shall see if the benefits are in the Brexiteer's favour in time.

To be perfectly honest, if the UK stance does not majorly impact on ROI, I would say let them at it. However, I do realise the reality, but in no way do I wish the UK to impact on our own economy or way of life really. Back to hubris on their part I suppose.

CelticRambler · 24-12-2019 12:54AM

AllForIt wrote: »

Why would the winners of a ref want another one? Absurd.

Indeed - it is quite absurd how Brexiters so vehemently protested against holding another referendum, having won the first, and yet even today we have examples on this forum of them being sore winners and trying to pass off yet another vote as a proxy referendum.

GE2017 was not a Brexit referendum; GE2019 was not a Brexit referendum; to claim that Johnson has a "clear mandate" for Brexit is just not true - the question was not on the ballot paper.

All that can be argued is that Johnson made a better case than anyone else for "getting Brexit done" - even though that's no more substantial a slogan than "Brexit means Brexit" - and he has a mandate for finally defining what Brexit is supposed to mean. The only problem there is that it obviously doesn't mean the "oven ready" deal he bragged about throughout his campaign, because he's already felt the need to mess about with it in the ten days since the election.

CelticRambler · 24-12-2019 01:02AM

Strazdas wrote: »

I wouldn't rule out though the UK slowly slumping into quite a bad place economically whilst still nominally a member of the Single Market. It might be obvious to all by mid 2020 that things are not going well and there is no Brexit dividend.

No, not by mid 2020. The first signs will be quite subtle and not noticed by "all" - not when most of the "all" are quite happy to accept any obvious lies that are fed to them through their favourite mouthpiece.

The slow slump won't really start until after the end of the transition period, and won't be noticed by Sunderland Man until well into the decade. What brains there are in the Johnson camp will almost certainly be expecting the worst to come at or around the time of the next election and will pour huge amounts of time, effort and taxpayer's money into keeping a lid on it until Johnson is re-elected.

24-12-2019 01:14AM

Would I be right in saying that since a trade deal only has one shot of making it through all EU parliaments, numbering over 30, the UK will have to do a balancing act of playing hard but also playing it careful?

Like, if there's some fickle part of the deal that could have one regional government not ratify, wouldn't the UK need to kind of give away that part, or the whole thing could crash down into No Deal?

It's just so risky trying to get it to pass all of Europe in one go since an extension isn't available. It doesn't have much to do with the negotiation team at all, or the leaders. Their hands are tied by what they think will or will not pass in dozens of places. The British government know this all too well having the Commons vote against its government's deals.

CelticRambler · 24-12-2019 01:35AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't have much to do with the negotiation team at all, or the leaders. Their hands are tied by what they think will or will not pass in dozens of places. The British government know this all too well having the Commons vote against its government's deals.

I don't think they do. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, coming out of the UK that leads one to think that they know who or what they're dealing with. In fact, the last three years have more or less confirmed that they really don't know what they're doing, and will have rings run around them by any other country they try to negotiate with.

The rest of the world now has two great examples of how to beat the British: the EU as a whole, and the Republic of Ireland - bury your whatever hatchets are wielded at home, fix an objective, and let the English fight amongst themselves until you get what you want.

24-12-2019 01:51AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

I don't think they do. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, coming out of the UK that leads one to think that they know who or what they're dealing with. In fact, the last three years have more or less confirmed that they really don't know what they're doing, and will have rings run around them by any other country they try to negotiate with.

I meant the EU's. I feel that there's a misunderstanding amongst Brexiteers that trade negotiations will work like the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations.. The idea that Johnson can strong arm a negotiation and the leaders of countries most affected. It's been the rhetoric since the election, and it makes no sense to me.

The EU's negotiating team will simply be trying to please all EU countries and regions. The UK can huff and puff but there's no one like Varadkar now they can target. The negotiation team can simply say "Yeah, we'll add that, but that makes it likely that Italy won't ratify. Since you can't extend, are you willing to take the risk?"

They're going to have to please countries far from the English Channel and Irish Sea.

Russman · 24-12-2019 04:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I meant the EU's. I feel that there's a misunderstanding amongst Brexiteers that trade negotiations will work like the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations.. The idea that Johnson can strong arm a negotiation and the leaders of countries most affected. It's been the rhetoric since the election, and it makes no sense to me.

The EU's negotiating team will simply be trying to please all EU countries and regions. The UK can huff and puff but there's no one like Varadkar now they can target. The negotiation team can simply say "Yeah, we'll add that, but that makes it likely that Italy won't ratify. Since you can't extend, are you willing to take the risk?"

They're going to have to please countries far from the English Channel and Irish Sea.

I think, in brutal terms, they won’t be pleasing anyone, they’ll be doing exactly as they’re told, if they want market access to the EU. Thing is, they might just get away with it too, leave voter Joe from Sunderland won’t care about the finer details of regulatory alignment or trade deals or the concessions the UK will make, as long as “Brexit gets done”. Resulting hardship will be blamed on anything and everything, uncertainty over Scotland, uncertainty over NI, the French being vindictive, remainers, Trump, May, whatever. If all else fails Boris will say we always knew things would get worse before they get better.

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments