Jump to content

Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )


jumpship

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    1494

  • ri Alban

    1425

  • Cade

    1385

  • Victorian

    1348

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Imaman said:

The drip feed of Broken Brexit Britain is turning into a flood.

 

No,  no,  the poor saps in the Euro zone are eternally cursed with the ability to compete with each other for workers from a population of nearly 500 million people under the tyranny of free movement of labour.

 

We took back control.  Hurr hurr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke

 

Where the **** is the money they said brexit would bring to the NHS? 
Being said for years they’ve been underfunding it and making sure it failed. 
It’s not got long left now that’s for sure. 
This has been the plan for long enough now sadly. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooter McGavin
7 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

Where the **** is the money they said brexit would bring to the NHS? 
Being said for years they’ve been underfunding it and making sure it failed. 
It’s not got long left now that’s for sure. 
This has been the plan for long enough now sadly. 
 


Brexit is going to cost us around £40 billion, but it’s alright, cause that £350 million for the NHS should arrive any-day soon…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooter McGavin

For any brexit simpletons looking in I’ll explain this in a way I hope you can understand.

 

An imaginary £350 million is worth a lot less than £40 billion.

 

So paying £40 billion to end up maybe getting an imaginary £350 million, is not really a good decision.

 

Also, please never use your stupid vote ever again. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent read and analysis. Chrisgreybrexit

How might Labour’s Brexit policy be made to work?

by Chris Grey Jul 29, 2022

In some ways these are golden weeks for Labour. The Johnson government is collapsing amid scandal, and the leadership contest has revealed how limited the talent within the Tory Party is and how riven it is by political divisions and personal animosities. Once the new Prime Minister is in place, that will pose new challenges and possibilities for Labour, not least as regards Brexit policy and positioning. In one way that may become easier. Johnson was the embodiment of the Vote Leave campaign which gave him a particular ability to jibe at Labour for being ‘anti-Brexit’. Such jibes will be much less potent coming from either Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak.

But the issue isn’t simply one of how to position the Labour opposition to the new Prime Minister’s administration. Just as important, if Labour are serious about winning, is how they would deal with the damage of Brexit if they come to power. For it is certain that, whoever leads it, a Tory government is not capable of doing anything remotely sensible about that damage in the meantime – if anything, it’s likely to make it worse – not least because neither candidate is able to even admit that it exists.  So Labour need to be ready to address Brexit damage if they win, and they have the opportunity to make it an advantage that they, unlike the Tories, are able to do so.

Labour’s current Brexit policy

In a recent post, I gave a limited, unenthusiastic and partial welcome to Sir Keir Starmer’s silence-breaking speech on Brexit in which he outlined Labour’s five steps to ‘Make Brexit Work’. Even that attracted some ire on Twitter, especially my statement that a referendum on re-joining the EU is not a realistic prospect for many years.

Of course, I know that view is anathema to many supportive and longstanding readers of this blog, and I obviously don’t like offending such readers. But I don’t write things according to whether I think readers will like or agree with them (whether those readers be Brexiters, leave voters, remain voters, or re-joiners), only according to what I think to be true, or probable, based on my interpretation of the available evidence. Needless to say, I am not always right in what I think, but I am always honest in saying what I think. Hopefully most readers, even when they believe I am wrong, or when I am subsequently proved to be wrong, appreciate that honesty.

Anyway, although I think his definitive, permanent, rejection of the single market and a customs union is a big mistake, I continue to think that Starmer’s Brexit stance does provide the basis of being better than that of either of Johnson’s successors because at least it acknowledges the need to seek to negotiate better terms than those of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Both Sunak and Truss are pretending that the TCA was fine and that there are illusory new opportunities that flow from it. So Starmer has a basis to critique their policy and to provide an alternative.

Additionally, of course, he is opposed to the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (NIPB) and Labour, including the Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh, deserve credit for having been robust in their critique of the Bill. Here too, as well as having a critique, Labour have at least the basis of a viable alternative policy in the form of a veterinary agreement, although the details need to be clarified. The Protocol is going to be a central issue in the politics of Brexit in the next few months, with the EU having launched four infringement proceedings against the UK last Friday, and the NIPB set to be, in some form or other, the first Brexit crisis for the new Prime Minister.

The limitations of Labour’s policy

However, accepting it has some virtues, Starmer’s policy has several problems, even leaving aside its stance on the single market and customs union. The most fundamental is that it fails to address Labour’s own role in the way Brexit has corrupted politics. I discussed this corruption recently in terms of Johnson and the Conservatives (and, outside parliament, the Faragists). But Labour played a part too.

That goes right back to the decision to vote to trigger Article 50, a total abdication of responsibility and principle, and encompasses Jeremy Corbyn’s decision in May 2018 to whip Labour MPs to oppose an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill which would have kept Britain in the single market. It is impossible to be certain but, given the very tight parliamentary arithmetic at the time, it is highly likely that this would have averted hard Brexit.

More generally, the endless ambiguities and contortions of Labour’s Brexit position since 2016 – including the failure under Starmer to challenge the government’s refusal to extend the transition period when that was possible, voting for the TCA, and then going mute for eighteen months – all made a contribution to the systemic dishonesty of Brexit politics. Starmer’s breaking of the silence was only a small first step, welcome but not sufficient, to redressing that.

Clearly the capacity of an opposition party to change a corrupted political culture is limited, but it can contribute by honesty in its own positioning, which includes a reckoning of its past errors. My sense is that whereas Starmer has, rightly, made considerable efforts to overtly address the rows over antisemitismduring the Corbyn period, those about Brexit have largely been papered over.

This isn’t ‘just’ a moral point about the conduct of politics. It also has a direct practical impact. For although Starmer did break the silence, the way that Brexit still festers as an unresolved issue for Labour impacts upon both general electoral strategy and specific political tactics.

At the strategic level, there’s obviously much more at stake than Brexit, but I would suggest that Brexit is both an aspect of and a proxy for the wider re-alignment of politics in which the places and people that Labour should regard as its heartlands are changing, as is the nature of the electoral coalition it now needs to bring together. From that perspective, the continuing Labour pre-occupation with the ‘red Wall’ as being its ‘true’ heartland, and with placating leave voters in those areas, suggests an unwillingness to face up to this re-alignment and, within that, to face up to Brexit.

That aside, the continuing sensitivity about Brexit presumably explains why, at a tactical level, the follow-through on Starmer’s Brexit speech has been so limited. For example, in his speech this week on economic growth Brexit warranted only a single, vague sentence. Yet it is clear from all reputable economic forecasts, and is incorporated into official government figures, that Brexit is likely to be a major drag on economic growth in the coming years. That can’t be ignored or, worse, as Truss seems to suggest (£), be addressed by ‘reforming’ the Treasury so as avoid hearing about it. That suggestion isn’t confined to her but arises directly from the Brexiters’ longstanding, deeply-held but preposterous belief that, as Jacob Rees-Mogg has said, the Treasury ‘fiddles the figures’ because it is staffed by remainers. It’s not just denying reality but demanding a different reality that suits Brexiters. That is doomed to failure. No growth strategy, whether under Truss, Sunak or Starmer, can be credible if it doesn’t address the effects of Brexit.

Equally striking, in terms of immediate tactics for political opposition, is how muted Labour have been about the Dover holiday queues. As I noted in my last post, when these were at their height last weekend, the only public comment came from Anneliese Dodds, urging the government to ‘get a grip’ but without saying anything else about the causes and solutions to what was happening. Subsequently, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves – who in the past has been quite robust in her willingness to call out Brexit damage – avoided the question when asked about the role of Brexit in the delays. If that happens even in a case where the damage of Brexit is highly visible and beyond reasonable doubt it means that the taboo has not really been lifted.

Wanted: a less constipated, more confident approach 

To be absolutely clear, I am most emphatically not expecting or suggesting that – either in relation to future policy on growth or immediate Brexit problems like the Dover queues – Labour should be crowing ‘we told you so’ or ‘you asked for it’, or even framing such issues in terms of whether it was right to have left the EU. That would be unnecessary, and impolitic both in the sense of needlessly alienating some voters and in the sense of not befitting a mature government in waiting. Rather, the Labour approach should be one of pragmatic realism: ‘no matter how or why these problems arose, unlike the Tories we don’t have to pretend they don’t exist and we know how to fix them’.

That, as Labour are beginning to argue, means creating a friendly partnership with the EU and with France, which in turn allows a closer trading and regulatory relationship and the development of a better border infrastructure with an agreement on staffing. Of course the latter will take a while because of the government’s failure to act when it should have done. So the proposal could also include some temporary measures, perhaps in the form of incentives for holidaymakers at the next few peak periods to use other crossings. I’m just guessing here – this may not be a viable policy, but my point is to try to identify specific easements for this particular situation. The same logic could apply to other particular Brexit-related problems, such as NHS staff shortages, where part of the answer might be to create specific schemes to make it easier and more attractive for EU nationals to work in Britain. Again, that may not be the right policy, but, again, the point is that, whatever it might consist of, policies need to exist that openly acknowledge the specific effects of Brexit and propose specific solutions.

Similarly, a mature and pragmatic approach to regulation would be to acknowledge, for example, the spiralling cost of national regulation of the chemicals sector (£), and to seek, perhaps as part of the TCA review, re-accession to the EU systems and databases that Johnson and David Frost eschewed on the principle that ‘sovereignty’ meant eschewing ECJ involvement. Starmer has already implied that Labour would breach that principle in relation to security databases, so why not chemicals?

With the chemicals sector, and many other sectors, there is a strong business case to avoid the regulatory duplication that Johnson’s Brexit is creating, and which the Tories are set to continue. Or, again, with Rees-Mogg already having recognized the folly of a UK specific conformity assessment regime, and postponed it again, it would hardly need much daring from Labour to suggest an even longer, if not permanent, deferral. That, too, would be widely supported by business and in line with a proposal by none other than the Institute for Economic Affairs!

As with what he implied about the ECJ’s role, there are hints in what Starmer has said about ‘mutual recognition’ that this is what he has in mind for regulatory issues, but he must know that ‘mutual recognition’ in itself won’t fly with the EU, any more than it did when Theresa May tried to go down that path in 2018 or on the periodic occasions it has been aired since. Labour need to spell out, with more honesty and greater detail, what they mean, and will certainly have to do so eventually if the ‘Make Brexit Work’ slogan is to have any practical meaning at all.

What all this adds up to, then, is not an explicit wholesale denunciation of Brexit, but an acceptance that leaving the EU is having specific damaging consequences and taking responsibility for addressing them. Of course such an approach would alienate some voters, and be attacked by the Tories. Equally, it would not satisfy many erstwhile remainers and would yield, at best, only partial reductions to the damage of Brexit. But the same is true of the current Labour approach and of just about any conceivable Labour approach. This one would at least allow Labour to talk realistically not so much about Brexit in general as about the consequences of Brexit in any and every policy area where they are part of what is relevant.

The key point is that the nature and tone of Labour’s approach needs to shift from one of constipated embarrassment, and reluctance to go near Brexit except in the most marginal ways, to a free-and-easy comfort which unapologetically – indeed proudly and confidently – acknowledges problems and propounds solutions. That would be a clear contrast to the Tory approach and, I believe, one which would have considerable electoral appeal given opinion poll evidence about how many people now think that Brexit was a mistake (53%, compared with 25% who think it was right) and/or that it hasn’t been handled well (54% think it has been handled poorly, with 31% saying ‘very poorly’; 29% think it has been handled well, with just 5% saying ‘very well’). This is an open door for Labour, and it requires little courage to push.

Unwanted: pointless, damaging tribalism

However, even if all that came about, there is another problem with the Labour position in that, since his Brexit speech, Starmer has come out unequivocally against any post-electoral deal of any sort whatsoever with the LibDems (perhaps less surprisingly he had already done the same as regards the SNP). In my view this is foolish, unnecessary, and by far the most indefensible decision he has taken as Labour’s leader. At a general level, it continues the historic error that has split the liberal-left majority for over a century ensuring that, because of the first past the post system, that majority has so often been ruled by the Tory minority. It’s a fresh iteration of that pointless, damaging tribalism.

At the specific level of Brexit, and the next election, it makes the timidity of his policy (even in the more expansive version just discussed) all but untenable for remainers, who are once again treated with contempt. In my earlier post on Starmer’s Brexit speech, I argued that it gave a justification for remainers - who are a majority of Labour voters, a large majority of LibDem voters and a not insignificant minority of Tory voters - to vote tactically for Labour or the LibDems according to constituency, in the hope of a Lib-Lab partnership (of some sort) that would substantially soften Brexit. That argument has clearly been damaged by the rejection of post-electoral cooperation.

It means that whereas in 2019 many LibDem and Tory remainers were reluctant to vote tactically for fear of a Corbyn-led minority administration, those same voters will now have less incentive to do so in the hope of a Starmer-led minority administration. On the other hand, it means that Labour remain voters in seats the LibDems could take from Tories have less incentive to vote tactically for that outcome, at the very moment that their reluctance to do so because of memories of the Tory-LibDem Coalition is beginning to fade.

Obviously it’s conceivable, perhaps more than conceivable, that, if it came to it, Starmer would back-track after the election if the outcome demanded it, but if so then his government would already start under a shadow of dishonesty. Just as conceivable, because of what he has said, he simply won’t get the chance to backtrack because voters will cling to their party allegiances and, yet again, there will be a Tory government based on a minority of the vote share.

If that happens then, along with many other consequences, there will be no softening of Brexit. So as a result of the combination of an abstruse political system and a failure of political leadership, we’ll be in an even worse situation than we are now. It will be one in which, if present poll trends continue, a clear and confirmed majority think Brexit is a mistake whilst being stuck with it being embedded in its hardest form until perhaps, 2030. By then it will be extremely difficult to unwind.

This may not happen; long-term political predictions are always a fool’s game, and there are lots of things that could happen to derail the scenario I have described. But if it does then Starmer’s foolishness about this will have been an error of historic proportions.

A coalition of competence?

There is still time for Labour to re-calibrate before the next election, both by deepening their post-Brexit policy and softening or reversing that on post-electoral co-operation with other parties, including not just the LibDems but the SNP. The arrival of the new Prime Minister could provide the rationale to do so (‘we had hoped that this would bring a new sense of responsibility from the government but, alas, we see the same old lies as from Boris Johnson, so in the national interest …’).

Naturally the Tories would attack this approach as subverting ‘the will of the people’, but given how clearly Starmer has indicated there will not be a re-join policy, and with the LibDems having deferred such a policy to an unspecified future date, that will only have traction amongst those for whom it would work against any Labour approach. The political mood is very different to 2016-2019. It would also be attacked for threatening a ‘coalition of chaos’ (presumably the attack Starmer is seeking to neuter) but, again, the political mood is very different to 2015. Even the composition of the electorate is different. It's easy to understand the desire to do so but, as Neal Lawson of Compass has argued this week, it’s just not enough for Starmer’s Labour simply to try, hedgehog-like, to block off every potential Tory attack line without offering any positive offer to voters.

Rather than look back fearfully to those old attacks, if Starmer is serious in his constantly repeated desire to ‘look forward’ it’s necessary to face the realities of the situation which, if Labour win the election, they will inherit. That unavoidably means dealing with the ongoing process of Brexit and with the legacy of what has already happened as a result of Brexit, which in turn means honesty and realism. At the same time, if Starmer is serious in his other refrain of wanting to end the divisions of Brexitthat can’t be done by pretending that they don’t exist, or by acting as if the only way to do so is by asking erstwhile remainers to make all the compromises.

It would be better in every way – morally, practically, and even electorally – to be truthful about realities. That’s why I would think Labour should soften their line on single market and customs union membership, to at least keep them open as possibilities for the future. That would certainly be far more realistic in terms of the economic facts about Brexit. But part of what being truthful about realities means is to accept what is politically feasible at a particular time. Admittedly, that’s a judgement call but my judgement is that Labour under Starmer are not going to soften on the single market in terms of their own policy going into the next election.

If I’m wrong, good. If I’m right, the point, as I’ve argued before, is that Labour’s interests and anti-Brexit interests aren’t the same. From an anti-Brexit point of view, the best realistically available outcome is still a Labour-LibDem, or perhaps Labour-LibDem-SNP, government. A coalition of competence, so to speak (whether or not configured as a formal coalition). With the LibDems already having the basis for an incomparably more detailed and ambitious policy on a far closer UK-EU relationship then Labour, culminating in single market membership, and perhaps with SNP support*, such a government could be expected to at least go further in that direction than a purely Labour administration. Starmer’s current disavowal of such cooperation has made that more unlikely but it remains the only glimmer of hope.

 

 
*I confess that I don’t fully understand how the SNP would approach this scenario. Might they judge that, if a UK government did come to embrace the single market, it would decrease support for Scottish independence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
56 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

It’s not my opinion or posted to make a point just thought interesting read. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/britain-brexit-truss-sunak.html

 

'Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, the country is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, freed from the shackles of Europe and able once again to confidently assert itself at home and abroad — is finished'

 

Pretty much nailed it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
15 hours ago, davemclaren said:

That’s a parody surely? 🤣

Sadly, no. 

It's  a genuine Leave video from 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/07/2022 at 06:57, Dazo said:


Gove it 5 minutes and someone will be along shortly who has never travelled or experienced going through passport control in the EU since brexit will tell you about the long delays you will face. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

You can tell that nonce has never ran the length of himself his whole life 😂

08FC061A-7A66-467F-906B-3C01FF7F2CB2.jpeg

:sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
4 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Somebody needs to tell Rishi that when he tears down all those EU laws he'll have achieved a level of diversification from EU law that should end most UK exports to the EU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the eastern Europeans have left.

We're simply replacing them with east Asians.

Who are falling prey to unscrupulous "agencies" who are docking wages until they've "paid back" what the agency says they are owed. These fees are illegal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/14/uk-farm-workers-kent-debt-indonesian-brokers

Edited by Cade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cade said:

All the eastern Europeans have left.

We're simply replacing them with east Asians.

Who are falling prey to unscrupulous "agencies" who are docking wages until they've "paid back" what the agency says they are owed. These fees are illegal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/14/uk-farm-workers-kent-debt-indonesian-brokers

 

There was some story somewhere (Grauniad, maybe?)) about a massive reduction in the number of EU citizens seeking to live in the UK.  Blamed on Brexit, even though there was also a massive downturn in economic activity and travel because of Covid-19.

 

That said, Brexit is likely to lead to a shift in who migrates into the UK rather than leading to a reduction in inward migration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flew from Edinburgh to Tenerife and no delays at either end. Border Control Tenerife South was smooth and used electronic passport biometric booth. Passport stamped no questions or any evidence required Covid or personal details. Seen some young people being quizzed about their Covid status eg PCR test results but me and the missus sailed through. They looked pleased to see so many coming to spend money!! 

Edited by Imaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danish football club Viborg FF are having to leave two of their African players at home for their trip to play West Ham due to Brexit paperwork meaning they cannot get visas fast enough.

With visa queues being several weeks long, but this fixture only being scheduled a week or so ago, UEFA and the Danish FA have been unable to get a fast track result.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cade said:

Danish football club Viborg FF are having to leave two of their African players at home for their trip to play West Ham due to Brexit paperwork meaning they cannot get visas fast enough.

With visa queues being several weeks long, but this fixture only being scheduled a week or so ago, UEFA and the Danish FA have been unable to get a fast track result.

 

 

 

Ban on British clubs playing in Europe would sort that.  :runaway:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ainsley Harriott
On 27/07/2022 at 18:20, jack D and coke said:

 

Where the **** is the money they said brexit would bring to the NHS? 
Being said for years they’ve been underfunding it and making sure it failed. 
It’s not got long left now that’s for sure. 
This has been the plan for long enough now sadly. 
 

Time to call a day on the NHS and do what the rest of the world do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ainsley Harriott
19 hours ago, Cade said:

Danish football club Viborg FF are having to leave two of their African players at home for their trip to play West Ham due to Brexit paperwork meaning they cannot get visas fast enough.

With visa queues being several weeks long, but this fixture only being scheduled a week or so ago, UEFA and the Danish FA have been unable to get a fast track result.

 

 

Another example of Brexit working in favour of Britian 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
21 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Another example of Brexit working in favour of Britian 

Low rent troll, you're like happy shopper energy drinks man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
34 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Time to call a day on the NHS and do what the rest of the world do

We’ll consider me shocked to see you’d like it sold off :lol: 

See the stuff they’ve sold off what ones would you say work better for the people? 
The energy companies? The national grid? Water boards? Railways? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

We’ll consider me shocked to see you’d like it sold off :lol: 

See the stuff they’ve sold off what ones would you say work better for the people? 
The energy companies? The national grid? Water boards? Railways? 

The rest of the world have their own version of the NHS. And most have a better service. Ours has been decimated by these Tory *****.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Another example of Brexit working in favour of Britian 

In favour of what? Britain gains nothing from being a twat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Another example of Brexit working in favour of Britian 

☝️Pound shop manalive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

periodictabledancer
10 hours ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Time to call a day on the NHS and do what the rest of the world do

And what does the rest of the world do that delivers healthcare free at the point of delivery ?

 

Get back in the kitchen. 

Edited by periodictabledancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ainsley Harriott
7 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

And what does the rest of the world do that delivers healthcare free at the point of delivery ?

 

Get back in the kitchen. 

List all the counties that do? There's not many 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooter McGavin
21 hours ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Time to call a day on the NHS and do what the rest of the world do

Individuals crippling themselves financially with healthcare bills they can’t afford?

 

Aye brilliant…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WorldChampions1902
1 hour ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Individuals crippling themselves financially with healthcare bills they can’t afford?

 

Aye brilliant…

60% of personal bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills. And a significant number of those people HAD medical insurance! But aye, let’s privatise the NHS.
 

We really have a worrying number of utter morons amongst us who actually believe that NHS privatisation is the answer and the sooner the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
3 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

We really have a worrying number of utter morons amongst us.

Sometimes less is more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke

Apparently a lot of the problems with this dumping raw sewage is due to a lack of HGV drivers and an inability to get the chemicals because of brexit. 
Telling you if you want to swim use your common sense but keep your mouth closed. 

This place man! :lol: 

 

 

8F448764-BFA5-4FAE-BA50-6D0B165823AB.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

Apparently a lot of the problems with this dumping raw sewage is due to a lack of HGV drivers and an inability to get the chemicals because of brexit. 
Telling you if you want to swim use your common sense but keep your mouth closed. 

This place man! :lol: 

 

 

8F448764-BFA5-4FAE-BA50-6D0B165823AB.jpeg

The REACH programme which we are now out of and can't access the treatment chemicals which in turn would cost bns to produce ourselves, apparently.

 

One way to stop the Spanish and French fisherman from fishing in our waters.  Just fecking pollute some of our own stocks....(slightly made up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

The REACH programme which we are now out of and can't access the treatment chemicals which in turn would cost bns to produce ourselves, apparently.

 

One way to stop the Spanish and French fisherman from fishing in our waters.  Just fecking pollute some of our own stocks....(slightly made up)

Maybe that's the plan, make our fish so rank that no one wants to fish them, leaving cheap, shitty fish for all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105

£18 billion trade deal incoming with the Pacific countries well played Boris 

who needs the EUs expense and bureaucracy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...