Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

19-02-2020 04:30AM

If No Deal is acceptable or even desirable for people like crypto, how can he also be championing Johnson's WA?

Am I really to believe that crypto thinks Johnson's WA was a great victory because it allowed the UK to pay what it owed, and it made provisions for NI, which he repeatedly describes as a place no one cares about? Maybe he cares deeply about citizens' rights? What else does it achieve for GB if there is no trade deal this year?

It's bizarre. It's like voluntarily giving your ex-wife 50% so you can see the kids, and then telling her that you don't care anymore about seeing the kids because this woman you've been chatting to on Tinder has a pet dog that looks pretty cute in the photos.

cryptocurrency · 19-02-2020 06:15AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If No Deal is acceptable or even desirable for people like crypto, how can he also be championing Johnson's WA?

Am I really to believe that crypto thinks Johnson's WA was a great victory because it allowed the UK to pay what is owed, and it made provisions for NI, which he repeatedly describes as a place no one cares about? Maybe he cares deeply about citizens' rights? What else does it achieve for GB if there is no trade deal this year?

It's bizarre. It's like voluntarily giving your ex-wife 50% so you can see the kids, and then telling her that you don't care anymore about seeing the kids because this woman you've been chatting to on Tinder has a pet dog that looks pretty cute in the photos.

That is a terrible comparison

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 06:15AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's like a bag of cats to be honest. You have two sets of ideologues of varying degrees of zeal screaming at each other about the future of NI despite the fact that the only thing keeping it in the UK is the perceived prestige hit of the Conservative and Unionist party presiding over its loss..........You may be correct as British people have for almost 50 years never understood the place.

Then you have the Scottish Nationalists constantly agitating for separation and not unfairly given the special deal that NI has got. If they're denied what they want then the Tories risk handing them ammunition and nobody knows what the future has in store.........These people were always seen as a joke. They came to prominence when for the first time wealth was found in Scotland in oil and gas. They have since made promise after claim on the back of it. None of it has ever stood up because their reliance of the rest of Britain is far greater. But all that would disappear and a border imposed. The place really would disappear into the abiss. But most English people have had enough. But will never be given the vote on such.

Then there's England. Both main parties accurately surmise the divisions plaguing England. They're present of course in NI, Scotland and Wales as well but to a lesser degree with the former two having their separatist movements to provide a unifying aegis for these factions.......There is really now only one party England.

The Conservatives are currently governing based on mandates from the sort of communities which voted for Brexit because they think it might improve their fortunes as well as those which long for the past. They now have to deliver something that can satisfy both camps. I think Johnson can pulls this off if he can keep the press on side which is likely.......They are governing on a huge vote count.

Then there's Labour. The strain of trying to satisfy working class leave voters concerned about immigration and sovereignty while being run by elitist, diversity loving Socialists has finally exposed how weak they are to say nothing of their dismal failure to placate even one of these demographics.......They wanted to enforce and adopt policies which were used in the 1970's. Those policies failed dismally back then. People remember those days and there was no way they will vote for them ever again. They tried to dress them up with a new lick of paint but people saw straight through it.

And then there's the generational divide whereby anyone young and career minded ships themselves off to big cities where they can't afford housing.........Same is most countries of the world I think.

Meanwhile, the NHS struggles to cater to an ageing population which voted to destabilise it via Brexit along with adding the loss of EU rights of free movement for those who already struggle to pay to live in said big cities......But this was always the flaw in the NHS. Advances in medicine mean longer lives. Same around the world in whatever system you have.
Ireland cant even form an NHS or anything similar. Same as a lot of other countries. Nice to be in the position (as you well know) of a creaky old system that provides any free health care dont you think?

I could go on. The educated versus the uneducated, the wealthy versus the working classes, the US culture war BS.... Well this is total BS. You are talking of an advanced society against your version of perfection which does not exist anywhere on the planet. The things you highlight are exactly the same in the rest of the EU and far worse in Ireland itself. So how you regard only the UK suffering from this because of voting for Brexit is the biggest form of BS that has been around in all the threads you have mastered over in the past 4 years. A bit like reshaping a square peg to fit 'your' version of a round hole.

cryptocurrency · 19-02-2020 06:16AM

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Yep. Today it's NI; tomorrow it's Scotland.

You don't understand your neighbours in Britain at all if you think Scotland or it's people is the same as NI

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 06:42AM

cryptocurrency wrote: »

That is a terrible comparison

Actually, it's a pretty good comparison.

To secure the WA, Johson signed up to legally binding commitments (a) to pay tens of billions to the EU; (b) to operate a customs and regulatory border between GB and NI; and (c) to afford certain treatment to EU citizens settled in the UK. And what did the UK get in return? It avoided a crash-out Brexit on 31 January and it kept open the possiblity of avoiding a crash-out at the end of the transition period, by making a trade deal.

If the UK now fails to secure a trade deal, Johnson will face obvious questions. What have we secured for our tens of billiions of euros, and the indefinite division of our domestic market? An 11-month deferral of a short, sharp transition to a WTO-only relationship? That doesn't seem like a terribly good deal, does it?

The WA only makes sense, from the UK's point of view, if you think that a trade deal with the EU is a highly desirable or necessary thing. If it is a highly desirable or necessary thing, then not getting it is a big problem. If it's a meh, take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, then the WA is far too high a price to pay merely to keep open the possiblity of getting it, and certainly looks like a really bad decision for the UK if, in the event, you get nothing, not even a meh trade deal.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 06:43AM

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You don't understand your neighbours in Britain at all if you think Scotland or it's people is the same as NI

They are the same as NI, so far as Brexiter concern about keeping them in the UK is concerned. They have as little regard for Scotland as they do for NI.

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 06:47AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are the same as NI, so far as Brexiter concern about keeping them in the UK is concerned. They have as little regard for Scotland as they do for NI.

No that is the part you do not understand. It is not a 'Brexiteer' view. It is the view of the other British people.

Its a bit like other countries assuming that the Republic think same as SF do.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 07:10AM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

No that is the part you do not understand. It is not a 'Brexiteer' view. It is the view of the British people.

Its a bit like other countries assuming that the Republic think as SF do.

So you're saying that the British people have as little regard for the Scots as they do for the people of NI.

Most people, when they use the term "British", include the Scots and often also at least those people in NI who identify as British. It seems unlikely, though, that the Scots - whether unionist or nationalist - have no regard for the Scots, and similarly that British people in NI have no regard for themselves. So I think when you say "British" you must mean "English". Is that right?

It also seems unlikely that this disregard for the Scots and the Irish can be ascribed even to the Englis people as a whole. As we know, a large minority, and by now quite possible a majority, of the English people do not favour Brexit, and among the reasons why they might not favour Brexit might be precisely the fact that they do not think it should be inflicted on nations that do not want it, thereby imperilling the union of the United Kingdom.

So, yeah, I really do think this disregard for the Scots and the Irish (and, indeed, for Remainers, who you seem to consider also not to be British) is a characteristically English Brexiter thing.

theological · 19-02-2020 07:29AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, yeah, I really do think this disregard for the Scots and the Irish (and, indeed, for Remainers, who you seem to consider also not to be British) is a characteristically English Brexiter thing.

I'm Irish and support Brexit, but it is incorrect to imply that because the British government were willing to consider the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement that they disregard it. If it wasn't handled in the agreement other people would be complaining about something else.

Also it is not the impression I get from British people I know most of whom regard Northern Ireland as a clear part of the union.

Whether people like it or not this government is going to be in power in Britain for most of the next 5 years. The big test for it is this year. I'm still optimistic something good can be agreed.

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 07:30AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you're saying that the British people have as little regard for the Scots as they do for the people of NI.

Most people, when they use the term "British", include the Scots and often also at least those people in NI who identify as British. But I think when you say "British" you must mean "English". Is that right?

I have explained this before a few times even this morning but once more just for you.

Britain/UK.......Nobody except some in Scotland have ever understood what goes on in NI ever since it all kicked off 50 years ago. Nobody could because they do not have the same mentality as those in NI. People in the rest of the UK are not religious so would never understand two religions arguing over a road or area let alone killing each other over it. In the Republic you were until recently religious and involved because of your history. The people of the rest of the UK are not. We all know NI is far more complicated than religion but that just confuses the rest of the UK and the on/off or channel switch is soon reached for long before any explanation could be given.

British means Scots..........But you have a section of them who because of whatever keep belly aching over everything (it appears) so the rest of the UK which is largely England would just say...'let them go if they want and be done with it'. Nobody in England would turn around and say 'they have to stay'. You would never find people over there demanding a united anything. The attitude would be 'its up to them'.

They have an attitude of ......'ok lets get on with it'.

In Ireland you have an attitude of finding every reason ..... 'not'.... to get on with it before you have even started. This is obvious throughout these 'Brexit' threads.

Probably why you can never understand Brexit.........or any other people apart from yourselves? But the rest of the world doesnt think like you and you cant understand that.

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 07:32AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you're saying that the British people have as little regard for the Scots as they do for the people of NI.

Most people, when they use the term "British", include the Scots and often also at least those people in NI who identify as British. It seems unlikely, though, that the Scots - whether unionist or nationalist - have no regard for the Scots, and similarly that British people in NI have no regard for themselves. So I think when you say "British" you must mean "English". Is that right?

It also seems unlikely that this disregard for the Scots and the Irish can be ascribed even to the Englis people as a whole. As we know, a large minority, and by now quite possible a majority, of the English people do not favour Brexit, and among the reasons why they might not favour Brexit might be precisely the fact that they do not think it should be inflicted on nations that do not want it, thereby imperilling the union of the United Kingdom.

So, yeah, I really do think this disregard for the Scots and the Irish (and, indeed, for Remainers, who you seem to consider also not to be British) is a characteristically English Brexiter thing.

Sigh.......Tis a shame to have such a closed mind.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 08:01AM

English Brexiters don't care if the policy they favour leads to the breakup of the United Kingdom, and in this regard you take English Brexiters to speak for "the British people". But I'm the one with a closed mind.

Right. :rolleyes:

theological · 19-02-2020 08:23AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

English Brexiters don't care if the policy they favour leads to the breakup of the United Kingdom, and in this regard you take English Brexiters to speak for "the British people". But I'm the one with a closed mind.

Right. :rolleyes:

I don't think what you're claiming is actually true and I'm not convinced Brexit will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom either.

We've got holes that need to be filled in before we can accept the conclusion you've stated.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 08:29AM

theological wrote: »

I don't think what you're claiming is actually true and I'm not convinced Brexit will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom either.

We've got holes that need to be filled in before we can accept the conclusion you've stated.

I'm not claiming it. Boredstiff666 is.

(And, for clarity: the issue is not whether Brexit will or will not lead to the breakup of the UK, but whether people care about the possiblity that that might happen. Boredstiff's position, in a nutshell, is that "the British people " - by which he appears to mean English supporters of Brexit - do not care if either Scotland or NI leave the UK in consequence of Brexit.)

ambro25 · 19-02-2020 08:32AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

English Brexiters don't care if the policy they favour leads to the breakup of the United Kingdom, and in this regard you take English Brexiters to speak for "the British people". But I'm the one with a closed mind.

Right. :rolleyes:

You might get a bit more cognitive traction out of them, once they cop on about Gibraltar and the EU's backing of Spain in the negotiation mandate in that respect. If their heads don't explode first, that is. Symbol value of the place and all that.

Then again, since they clearly are not bothered about NI, Scotland or the 48+%...why would they suddenly care about a far-away bit of rock and the plight of its migrant Brit cross-border workers?

theological · 19-02-2020 08:36AM

ambro25 wrote: »

You might get a bit more cognitive traction out of them, once they cop on about Gibraltar and the EU's backing of Spain in the negotiation mandate in that respect. If their heads don't explode first, that is. Symbol value of the place and all that.

Then again, since they clearly are not bothered about NI, Scotland or the 48+%...why would they suddenly care about a far-away bit of rock and the plight of its migrant Brit cross-border workers?

They said this last time in the negotiations and they backed down. I suspect the same will happen this time.

ambro25 · 19-02-2020 08:41AM

theological wrote: »

They said this last time in the negotiations and they backed down. I suspect the same will happen this time.

You're missing the obvious game-changer relative to 'last time': for all the current artifices brought about by the WA, the UK is not an EU member state anymore.

theological · 19-02-2020 08:44AM

ambro25 wrote: »

You're missing the obvious game-changer relative to 'last time': for all the current artifices brought about by the WA, the UK is not an EU member state anymore.

Yeah, I'm not buying this logic either.

The UK was in the process of leaving during the negotiations.

I suspect this point will be rolled over on pretty early. I could be wrong but I suspect I'm not.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 08:56AM

theological wrote: »

. . . I could be wrong but I suspect I'm not.

You're both wrong!

Spain isn't going to hold out against a trade deal unless the UK surrenders Gibraltar.

And Spain didn't say that they were going to do that last time either, in connection with the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK tabloid press, stirred up by the lunatic right of the Tory party, tried to present the issue as an attack on sovereignty. Well, big surprise there. It never was that. It isn't now either.

Spain has Brexit-related issues with regard to Gibraltar, but they are largely focussed on minimising Brexit-related economic dislocation in Spain as a result of Gibraltar's change of status. This aligns fairly well with what the Gibraltarians want, which is to minimise economic dislocation in Gibraltar as a result of Gibraltar's change of status. Neither position aligns well with what hard Brexiters want, which is why there's a possibiity of friction over the matter. For obvious reasons, hard Brexiters don't want to draw attention to the fact that their position is inimical to the wishes and interests of both Spain and Gibraltar; they prefer articles in the Express about how the UK's naval power is sufficient to give the Dagoes a good walloping and, naturally, they have no difficulty in engineering such articles.

Castlekeeper · 19-02-2020 08:58AM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I have explained this before a few times even this morning but once more just for you.

Britain/UK.......Nobody except some in Scotland have ever understood what goes on in NI ever since it all kicked off 50 years ago. Nobody could because they do not have the same mentality as those in NI. People in the rest of the UK are not religious so would never understand two religions arguing over a road or area let alone killing each other over it. In the Republic you were until recently religious and involved because of your history. The people of the rest of the UK are not. We all know NI is far more complicated than religion but that just confuses the rest of the UK and the on/off or channel switch is soon reached for long before any explanation could be given.

The conflict in NI are not complicated at all, it's really about colonisation and oppression of a disadvantaged minority. Some British people get it, some don't, and some ignore it.
Unlike Scotland, the British Empire's religious conversion colonisation, failed in Ireland, which is another factor in its heightened symbolism.

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 09:10AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

English Brexiters don't care if the policy they favour leads to the breakup of the United Kingdom, and in this regard you take English Brexiters to speak for "the British people". But I'm the one with a closed mind.

Right. :rolleyes:

No you are the closed mind or the one tracked mind.

You keep banging on with your obsession of Brexiteers. Brexit is just one issue or policy. There is more to someones opinion or character than one issue or policy.

Like I said it would be the same as thinking every Irish person thought exactly the same as a SF politician. They dont but you seem to think that everything British is Brexit and seen through the eyes of Nigel Farage.

You have the view of others, Britain in this instance of someone whose knowledge is from the internet. I think you ought to step outside away from your keyboard and venture outside one day. Meeting real people is not hard and you will find after a time you may even be able to communicate verbally with them. It may enlighten you a little.

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 09:19AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not claiming it. Boredstiff666 is.

(And, for clarity: the issue is not whether Brexit will or will not lead to the breakup of the UK, but whether people care about the possiblity that that might happen. Boredstiff's position, in a nutshell, is that "the British people " - by which he appears to mean English supporters of Brexit - do not care if either Scotland or NI leave the UK in consequence of Brexit.)

There are just no words.:rolleyes:

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 09:21AM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

No you are the closed mind or the one tracked mind.

You keep banging on with your obsession of Brexiteers. Brexit is just one issue or policy. There is more to someones opinion or character than one issue or policy.

Like I said it would be the same as thinking every Irish person thought exactly the same as a SF politician. They dont but you seem to think that everything British is Brexit and seen through the eyes of Nigel Farage.

BS, you're the one who ascribed the (unquestionably pro-hard Brexit) view we are discussing to "the British people".

Boredstiff666 · 19-02-2020 09:27AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

BS, you're the one who ascribed the (unquestionably pro-hard Brexit) view we are discussing to "the British people".

I refer to 1301.

Everyone of your posts is Brexit. 1301 wasn't but you are trying to change words.

Leroy42 · 19-02-2020 10:13AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

To secure the WA, Johson signed up to legally binding commitments (a) to pay tens of billions to the EU; (b) to operate a customs and regulatory border between GB and NI; and (c) to afford certain treatment to EU citizens settled in the UK. And what did the UK get in return? It avoided a crash-out Brexit on 31 January and it kept open the possiblity of avoiding a crash-out at the end of the transition period, by making a trade deal.

If the UK now fails to secure a trade deal, Johnson will face obvious questions. What have we secured for our tens of billiions of euros, and the indefinite division of our domestic market? An 11-month deferral of a short, sharp transition to a WTO-only relationship? That doesn't seem like a terribly good deal, does it?

The WA only makes sense, from the UK's point of view, if you think that a trade deal with the EU is a highly desirable or necessary thing. If it is a highly desirable or necessary thing, then not getting it is a big problem. If it's a meh, take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, then the WA is far too high a price to pay merely to keep open the possiblity of getting it, and certainly looks like a really bad decision for the UK if, in the event, you get nothing, not even a meh trade deal.

This is an excellent point. Johnson signed the WA, but appears to not only be ok with a No Deal but be openly advocating for it.

So why sign the WA? Will it be seen as akin to Chamberlains piece of paper of the plane? It appears, from the noises coming from No10, that they have simply bought themselves 11 months, after of course he failed to deliver on his initial promise of 31 Oct.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 10:22AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is an excellent point. Johnson signed the WA, but appears to not only be ok with a No Deal but be openly advocating for it.

So why sign the WA? Will it be seen as akin to Chamberlains piece of paper of the plane? It appears, from the noises coming from No10, that they have simply bought themselves 11 months, after of course he failed to deliver on his initial promise of 31 Oct.

Which is why I think that the cromulent explanation of Johnson's position is that he does want an FTA; that he intends to compromise at the last minute to the extent necessary to get one; that the current apparent targetting of a high-friction FTA and insouciance about getting no FTA at all are both postures intended to (a) keep the ultra-brexiters off his back, and (b) maximise the amount of compromising the EU will be willing to do, and minise the amount the UK will have to do, to reach an agreement.

But I could be completely wrong. I often am.

ambro25 · 19-02-2020 10:33AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're both wrong!

Spain isn't going to hold out against a trade deal unless the UK surrenders Gibraltar.

And Spain didn't say that they were going to do that last time either, in connection with the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK tabloid press, stirred up by the lunatic right of the Tory party, tried to present the issue as an attack on sovereignty. Well, big surprise there. It never was that. It isn't now either.

Spain has Brexit-related issues with regard to Gibraltar, but they are largely focussed on minimising Brexit-related economic dislocation in Spain as a result of Gibraltar's change of status. This aligns fairly well with what the Gibraltarians want, which is to minimise economic dislocation in Gibraltar as a result of Gibraltar's change of status. Neither position aligns well with what hard Brexiters want, which is why there's a possibiity of friction over the matter. For obvious reasons, hard Brexiters don't want to draw attention to the fact that their position is inimical to the wishes and interests of both Spain and Gibraltar; they prefer articles in the Express about how the UK's naval power is sufficient to give the Dagoes a good walloping and, naturally, they have no difficulty in engineering such articles.

Don't read so much in my posts, Peregrinus, please [EDIT: in *this* 'simplified thread/forum

]: Spain's position about Gib (as 'endorsed' in the EU draft mandate) is extra negotiating leverage, to the same extent as the Elgin Marbles piquing social media's current interest -and a litany more to come in the next few days/weeks, I expect- but it's not, and was never meant, as a deal breaker, no more than the others.

The recent designation of the Cayman Islands as a tax haven is part and parcel of this same (extra-) leverage-setting by the EU for the forthcoming negotiations.

Unsurprisingly, it's all about bracketing the UK's path towards the negotiated outcomes which the EU wants: the more kitchen sinks the EU adds at the opening -and can sacrifice along the negotiating way as and when- the less the expected core outcomes need to change.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2020 10:51AM

ambro25 wrote: »

. . . Unsurprisingly, it's all about bracketing the UK's path towards the negotiated outcomes which the EU wants: the more kitchen sinks the EU adds at the opening -and can sacrifice along the negotiating way as and when- the less the expected core outcomes need to change.

I take your point.

But I dunno. I don't think all these kitchen sinks are part of a strategy on the part of the EU; they result more from individual member states seeking to ensure that their concerns get taken on board and addressed, and of course different member states have different concerns and priorities.

In a sense, this is the flip side of something that Brexiters have been hoping for/predicting all along. Remember how the German carmakers, the Italian prosecco-producers, etc, were going to ride to the rescue? How little Ireland would be thrown under the bus as the concerns of More Important Countries came to dominate? The annoying unanimity and solidarity of the EU was a problem for the UK; they even sought to undermine it by speaking directly to member state governments. (Anyone remember David Davis's "charm offensive"?)

The thing is, when Member States do seek to promote their own particular issues, there is no reason to expect that this will tend to push the EU in a direction that favours the UK. It can just as easily, as it does here, result in the promotion of issues and stances that are inimical to what the UK wants.

And, either way, it seems likely to cause delay. The more diverse issues individual member states seek to shoehorn into the EU's negotiating position, the longer it takes to arrive at a negotiating position that satisfies everyone and the more scrappy that position will be. With their unerring instinct for painting themselves into a corner for no good reason, the UK has decided that the only FTA worth acheiving is one that can be acheived in an improbably short timescale. And the more issues that have to be address and agreed in the FTA, the less likely it is that the FTA can be concluded in the arbitrary period the UK has imposed on itself.

ambro25 · 19-02-2020 11:05AM

I take your point also, and will readily agree that each member state has its own domestic political scene/audience, to which the incumbents will play on the back of Brexit. Whoever said the EU's throwing of PR crumbs to help governments with their domestic politics, had to be limited to the UK?

But I think the fact that such peripheral, member state-respective issues are likely to cause delays in the negotiations, is a feature of the EU negotiating strategy, rather than a bug: upping time pressure on Johnson under his self-imposed but impossibly-tight deadline, by swamping his negotiators with 'noise' from Gib, the Elgin Marbles and such (all concealing a solid EU27 unity about LPF in the background) and possibly casting them onto futile 'divide and conquer' attempts based on same, serves the EU's parallel and alternative purposes of either getting him to sign on the LPF dotted line close to the deadline, or seeking an extension to the WA (for getting him to sign on the LPF dotted line in due course).

I'm of course open to events eventually proving me wrong

CelticRambler · 19-02-2020 01:45PM

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

No you are the closed mind or the one tracked mind.

You keep banging on with your obsession of Brexiteers. Brexit is just one issue or policy. There is more to someones opinion or character than one issue or policy.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Everyone of your posts is Brexit.

Ummm. You might find this difficult to understand, but it's actually quite normal (in fact it's encouraged) for posts on a moderated discussion board to be limited to the topic of discussion.

With reference to your post #1301 (most of which makes no sense to me whatsoever ...

) I think you might want to review your position on this point:

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

British means Scots..........But you have a section of them who because of whatever keep belly aching over everything (it appears) so the rest of the UK which is largely England would just say...'let them go if they want and be done with it'. Nobody in England would turn around and say 'they have to stay'. You would never find people over there demanding a united anything. The attitude would be 'its up to them'.

Your Prime Minister, and the leader of the Labour Party, and the leader of the LibDems (they're all British, right?) made it 100% clear during the election, and PM Johnson after the election (he's still British, isn't he?) reiterated the position that there would be a united something, specifically the United Kingdom, and they weren't just demanding it, but prohibiting any attempt at disunity. The Scots will not be allowed hold a second referendum, and NI will not be disassociated by reason of an administrative border.

On the other hand, all recent surveys have shown that the British as a whole, and Brexiters/Leavers in particular consistently say that losing NI and/or Scotland would be a price worth paying for a purer, cleaner, harder Brexit.

So there we have the paradoxical situation where the ruling party, that you say has a clear mandate as a result of the most recent election, is speaking and acting contrary to the expressed wishes of the public as a whole, and to the democratic mandate delivered by the electorate of two of the UK's constituent countries. Hardly a model of good government, is it?

Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Comments