Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Cade]

Dyson the man pays the personal taxes he is liable to pay in this country.

£130million or so is contributed by him and his family in total.

People should not be congratulated simply for paying what they owe. That should be taken as a given. 

 

Dyson the company is lowering taxes by moving.

This will lose the UK exchequer many hundreds of millions in lost revenue.

UK gets poorer because this pro-Brexit company are leaving the UK.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2019 by Cade

[Francis Albert]

40 minutes ago, Cade said:

Dyson the man pays the personal taxes he is liable to pay in this country.

£130million or so is contributed by him and his family in total.

People should not be congratulated simply for paying what they owe. That should be taken as a given. 

 

Dyson the company is lowering taxes by moving.

This will lose the UK exchequer many hundreds of millions in lost revenue.

UK gets poorer because this pro-Brexit company are leaving the UK.

 

 

 

 

First lots of (if not most) very rich people avoid paying personal taxes by various means.

Second as Chief Exec or Chairman of a company his responsibility is to the health and survival of the company. If he fails to ensure the company is competitive and survives the "many hundred millions of lost revenue" for he UK exchequer  (not to mention several thousand UK jobs) simply won't exist. Nor I suspect will much of his personal tax payments.

[Ulysses]

43 minutes ago, Cade said:

Dyson the man pays the personal taxes he is liable to pay in this country.

£130million or so is contributed by him and his family in total.

People should not be congratulated simply for paying what they owe. That should be taken as a given. 

 

Dyson the company is lowering taxes by moving.

This will lose the UK exchequer many hundreds of millions in lost revenue.

UK gets poorer because this pro-Brexit company are leaving the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of rich people who won't pay anything like the amount paid by Dyson.

 

I didn't read the article, so I don't know what percentage tax he pays, but there are lots of wealthy individuals (and not just British people) who pay nothing or next to nothing.

 

Of course Dyson's personal tax position doesn't alter the fact that the company is proofing itself against no deal, which means it has no relevance to the discussion - although conviction Leave supporters would no doubt have a different view.

[SwindonJambo]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

First lots of (if not most) very rich people avoid paying personal taxes by various means.

Second as Chief Exec or Chairman of a company his responsibility is to the health and survival of the company. If he fails to ensure the company is competitive and survives the "many hundred millions of lost revenue" for he UK exchequer  (not to mention several thousand UK jobs) simply won't exist. Nor I suspect will much of his personal tax payments.

 

Mike Ashley paid £30m. His personal wealth is £3bn + No idea what his income is, but it must be way over £100m. Given the rest of his business ethics you can be sure he exploits every loophole going.

[SwindonJambo]

6 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

I think people have completely misunderstood my post. I didn’t suggest AT ALL that Ireland should be part of the union again I haven’t met anybody who has suggested it either. What I did suggest was that the knobs in the positions of power in this country think Ireland should basically bow down to the almighty Great Britain and bend to whatever brexit we decide we’re having and **** them basically. As Ireland have clearly not done that, this has annoyed the british immensely. 

JD, if you meant the privileged and knobbish political elite at the top, then fine. You could well be right. But you repeatedly refer to "the English" or "the British", which most people take to be the wider population at large. 

 

Everyone I know here fully respects Ireland's independence and right to assert itself and look after its own interests. As for the tiny empowered political elite, it may be different.

[Ulysses]

Hugh Orde, former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, gives his views on the risks and difficulties of a hard border on this island.

 

http://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0127/1025834-hard-border-northern-ireland/

 

He also makes the point that it is difficult to see how a hard border can be avoided in the absence of a deal.

[The Mighty Thor]

18 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Hugh Orde, former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, gives his views on the risks and difficulties of a hard border on this island.

 

http://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0127/1025834-hard-border-northern-ireland/

 

He also makes the point that it is difficult to see how a hard border can be avoided in the absence of a deal.

I believe there's contingencies to send officers from the UK to the province in the event of a no deal, so Hugh Orde is probably bang on the cash.

[jack D and coke]

42 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

JD, if you meant the privileged and knobbish political elite at the top, then fine. You could well be right. But you repeatedly refer to "the English" or "the British", which most people take to be the wider population at large. 

 

Everyone I know here fully respects Ireland's independence and right to assert itself and look after its own interests. As for the tiny empowered political elite, it may be different.

Of course that’s what I meant. 

Despite what probably some might think on here I’m not that stupid  

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, Cade said:

Humphrys said: “There has to be an argument, doesn’t there, that says instead of Dublin telling this country that we have to stay in the single market etc within the customs union, why doesn’t Dublin, why doesn’t the Republic of Ireland, leave the EU and throw in their lot with this country?”

 

 

It is about time humphrys retired and the question was no doubt  an attempt at humour or mischief rather than a serious political point. But since much of the brexit debate has featured the supposed national suicide and self-harm of the UK in leaving a free trade arrangememt with its major trading partner then there is just a sllther of a point about Ireland and the UK as its major trading partner. I am nevertheless sure the Irish Minister for Europe had no difficulty in answering in a suitably withering way.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Francis Albert

[SwindonJambo]

6 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Of course that’s what I meant. 

Despite what probably some might think on here I’m not that stupid  

Thanks for clarifying that - it makes it a fair point imho. I thought you'd lost it! I'm definitely not part of that particular 'some' group. ? 

 

As a previous poster said, I would take any articles on Empire from a US publication with a very large pinch of salt. 

 

Boris Johnson and his merry band of chums certainly underestimated the Irish border issue.

[Ulysses]

On 26/01/2019 at 23:48, XB52 said:

As much as I detest the little Englander attitudes of a lot of the leavers and the vast majority of the tory party, that article is just your typical American garbage. The ones that exhorted the Ira as downtrodden freedom  fighters against the dastardly brits.

 

It might well be garbage, but in fairness to the Americans the writer was born and raised in India.

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I believe there's contingencies to send officers from the UK to the province in the event of a no deal, so Hugh Orde is probably bang on the cash.

 

The Times reported at the weekend that there are 700 MI5 personnel in Belfast at the moment.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

The Times reported at the weekend that there are 700 MI5 personnel in Belfast at the moment.

Who are recruiting on JKB. 

 

 

[doctor jambo]

18 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

After the ridicule, scorn and even accusation of treason. interesting that James Dyson makes the top three in the Sunday Times list of top UK taxpayers.

The article is VERY ambiguous.
the times estimates itself what they should pay.

What would be interesting is if they published the estimates, then the reality- they publish the gap

[jack D and coke]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

It might well be garbage, but in fairness to the Americans the writer was born and raised in India.

A point completely missed by everyone it seems. 

[Cade]

Last week EU says "This deal is THE deal. We will not be changing it and it's up to the UK to get it through it's own parliament"

 

Today, the UK has asked for a re-negotiation.

 

EU instantly says no.

 

[Mikey1874]

25 minutes ago, Cade said:

Last week EU says "This deal is THE deal. We will not be changing it and it's up to the UK to get it through it's own parliament"

 

Today, the UK has asked for a re-negotiation.

 

EU instantly says no.

 

 

Tories saying No Deal must be on table to force EU to give way

 

But apparently May will not let No Deal happen (as reported by The Sun). Which the EU know. 

 

All seems to be to get changes to Backstop. Only way to change that is to agree to a customs union. Which will split the Tories. 

[Cade]

Parliament won't pass May's deal.

Parliament also won't allow no deal.

May won't remove her red lines.

DUP won't agree to anything.

EU standing firm on everything.

Good Friday Agreement more or less enforces no border in Ireland.

 

Lots of contradictions there. 

Something's got to give way.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Parliament won't pass May's deal.

Parliament also won't allow no deal.

May won't remove her red lines.

DUP won't agree to anything.

EU standing firm on everything.

Good Friday Agreement more or less enforces no border in Ireland.

 

Lots of contradictions there. 

Something's got to give way.

What does "more or less" mean? What rules out a border in Ireland is the threat (or rather promise) of a return of bombing and shooting. The GFA as an an agreememt or "international treaty" does not mention the border or absence of one.

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

The GFA as an an agreememt or "international treaty" does not mention the border or absence of one.

 

Why just make shit up like this? To what end?

[Jambo100]

It is illegal to have a border.UK law

[Francis Albert]

46 minutes ago, Jambo100 said:

It is illegal to have a border.UK law

Under what statute?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

Why just make shit up like this? To what end?

You have presumably read the GFA and can say what provisions of that agreement address the border and provide that it does not and  is not permitted to exist.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Justin Z]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

You have presumably read the GFA

 

I have.

 

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

and can say what provisions of that agreement address the border

I can.

 

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

and provide that it does not and is not permitted to exist.

 

Not what you said.

 

 

Answer the questions.

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I have.

 

I can.

 

 

Not what you said.

 

 

Answer the questions.

Clearly my answer to your question is that I am not making it up. Now again. What provisiions of the GFA deal with the border. I read it twice and I must admit to my surprise that I couldn't find any. But I have known to be wrong and am (and always have been since I first made that claim) willing to be shown to have been wrong.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[sairyinthat]

Borders are a must when we leave,we can't have the Southern end having free unhindered access to the Uk market to smuggle goods from Europe and they will given the chance,stop and examine every vehicle I say.

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

Borders are a must when we leave,we can't have the Southern end having free unhindered access to the Uk market to smuggle goods from Europe and they will given the chance,stop and examine every vehicle I say.

As the EU has recently pointed out the Republic of Ireland must also have one with border controls  to comply with the customs union if the UK is not in the customs union. 

But an international treaty (it is claimed) prohibits a border. If so  (i dont think it does) then why the need for a backstop? Neither The UK nor the ROI can ( if the treaty say what is claimed) agree to a future trading relationship which requires border controls.

But the treaty simply doesn't ( as I read it) say what is claimed. Which is why there is a problem.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[sairyinthat]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As the EU has recently pointed out the Republic of Ireland must also have one with border controls  to comply with the customs union if the UK is not in the customs union. 

But an international treaty (it is claimed) prohibits a border. If so  (i dont think it does) then why the need for a backstop? Neither The UK nor the ROI can ( if the treaty say what is claimed) agree to a future trading relationship which requires border controls.

But the treaty simply doesn't ( as I read it) say what is claimed. Which is why there is a problem.

Truth be told I don't know the niceties of the fine print to dispute any- bodies views I am an exiteer and know the Eu have a thing about free access to their market and therefore want it controlled and I, likewise want a very tight one at every possible entrypoint

[Francis Albert]

26 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

Truth be told I don't know the niceties of the fine print to dispute any- bodies views I am an exiteer and know the Eu have a thing about free access to their market and therefore want it controlled and I, likewise want a very tight one at every possible entrypoint

You are quite right. A few days ago an EU official reminded the Republic of Ireland of this (in an apparent attempt to encourage the ROI to soften its line on the backstop)which caused a bit of  a kerfuffle in Dublin where the government had claimed it was prepared for every eventuality including a no-deal Brexit. But not for customs controls on the border in 8 weeks time.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Justin Z]

56 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Clearly my answer to your question is that I am not making it up. Now again. What provisiions of the GFA deal with the border. I read it twice and I must admit to my surprise that I couldn't find any. But I have known to be wrong and am (and always have been since I first made that claim) willing to be shown to have been wrong.

 

No, based on your history of trolling that is not clear at all.

 

Putting aside that the document contains the word "border" ten times and the phrase "all-island" six times, the treaty (not "international treaty"--it is a treaty, full stop) establishes, among other bodies, the North-South Ministerial Council, which necessarily deals with cross-border issues and indeed possesses powers that affect the whole of the island.

 

Even if we were to ignore all of this, the practicality imposed by a couple of decades of Good Friday Agreement policy and economic developments means a hard border is functionally impossible. One small example of many is that Northern Ireland does not have the infrastructure to generate all its own electricity. A hard border cannot happen, and the Good Friday Agreement could not have been crafted in the fashion it was had the UK not been a member of the EU in 1998.

 

All of that is even if none of those words appeared anywhere in the text of the agreement. The necessity of reality wins out regardless.

[Francis Albert]

16 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No, based on your history of trolling that is not clear at all.

 

Putting aside that the document contains the word "border" ten times and the phrase "all-island" six times, the treaty (not "international treaty"--it is a treaty, full stop) establishes, among other bodies, the North-South Ministerial Council, which necessarily deals with cross-border issues and indeed possesses powers that affect the whole of the island.

 

Even if we were to ignore all of this, the practicality imposed by a couple of decades of Good Friday Agreement policy and economic developments means a hard border is functionally impossible. One small example of many is that Northern Ireland does not have the infrastructure to generate all its own electricity. A hard border cannot happen, and the Good Friday Agreement could not have been crafted in the fashion it was had the UK not been a member of the EU in 1998.

 

All of that is even if none of those words appeared anywhere in the text of the agreement. The necessity of reality wins out regardless.

Ok. You couldn't find anything to support your allegation that I was lying. Thanks.

The references to border I found were  to "cross-border"which far from.denying the existence of a border seems to me to do the opposite.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Cade]

The GFA allows anybody in NI to identify either as Irish or as British as they wish, to hold a passport of either nation (or both) and to have exactly the same rights as a citizen of either nation, including the freedom of where to live.

When Ireland and the UK were both part of the EU, this meant almost nothing as the EU gave all those rights to citizens of both the UK and Ireland.

Now that the UK is leaving, this throws up the border issue.

The British PM's silly red lines are removing the equal freedoms and rights stipulated under the GFA.

 

This could be solved by letting NI get special status with the EU, which would eliminate the need for a hard border on the island of Ireland, but the DUP won't have it.

Even if NI did get special status, Scotland would (rightly) also ask for this same treatment, especially in the light of the strong support for staying in the EU in the referendum result.

That would weaken the ties between the 4 home nations, so Westminster won't have it.

The entire UK staying in the customs union would solve all of that, but again, PM May has decided that her red idiotic lines are immovable.

 

The backstop is all about ensuring that the Irish border remains open in the event of Brexit going tits up and a No Deal situation being the terms we leave on (which looks more likely by the day).

The backstop has to be unlimited in time otherwise it's not a legal backstop, just a transition period.

A transition to.......what?

Nobody can answer that. Nothing has been negotiated, hence the backstop must remain a permanent backstop.

 

60 days to go and people are only really starting to think hard about all of this stuff now.

It's laughable.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

For anyone arguing about the terms of the Belfast agreement, in the event of no Deal can you set out either.

 

1. The steps that would be taken to set up a hard border

 

OR

 

2. What would prevent a hard border

[The Mighty Thor]

So we've reached the point where Maybot is being forced to raise an amendment against the terms of the deal and backstop she negotiated just to keep her party from erupting?

 

Better together ?

[Francis Albert]

24 minutes ago, Cade said:

The GFA allows anybody in NI to identify either as Irish or as British as they wish, to hold a passport of either nation (or both) and to have exactly the same rights as a citizen of either nation, including the freedom of where to live.

When Ireland and the UK were both part of the EU, this meant almost nothing as the EU gave all those rights to citizens of both the UK and Ireland.

Now that the UK is leaving, this throws up the border issue.

The British PM's silly red lines are removing the equal freedoms and rights stipulated under the GFA.

 

This could be solved by letting NI get special status with the EU, which would eliminate the need for a hard border on the island of Ireland, but the DUP won't have it.

Even if NI did get special status, Scotland would (rightly) also ask for this same treatment, especially in the light of the strong support for staying in the EU in the referendum result.

That would weaken the ties between the 4 home nations, so Westminster won't have it.

The entire UK staying in the customs union would solve all of that, but again, PM May has decided that her red idiotic lines are immovable.

 

The backstop is all about ensuring that the Irish border remains open in the event of Brexit going tits up and a No Deal situation being the terms we leave on (which looks more likely by the day).

The backstop has to be unlimited in time otherwise it's not a legal backstop, just a transition period.

A transition to.......what?

Nobody can answer that. Nothing has been negotiated, hence the backstop must remain a permanent backstop.

 

60 days to go and people are only really starting to think hard about all of this stuff now.

It's laughable.

 

 

Nothing in your post or the GFA  is inconstent with there being a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.

[Francis Albert]

27 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

For anyone arguing about the terms of the Belfast agreement, in the event of no Deal can you set out either.

 

1. The steps that would be taken to set up a hard border

 

OR

 

2. What would prevent a hard border

1. That in the slightly longer term would depend on the future trading relationship between the EU and the UK on which negotiations have not yet  begun.  But in the event of no.deal some form of at least temporary  customs control by both the UK and ROI

2. The threat/promise of a few hundred dissident Republican paramilitaries to oppose through violence anything that in their view would be a "hard border"

Edited January 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Mikey1874]

9 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

1. That in the slightly longer term would depend on the future trading relationship between the EU and the UK on which negotiations have not yet  begun.  But in the event of no.deal some form of at least temporary  customs control by both the UK and ROI

2. The threat/promise of a few hundred dissident Republican paramilitaries to oppose through violence anything that in their view would be a "hard border"

 

Thanks

 

I'm asking about the practical steps 

 

1. E.g. UK and EU discussions, involvement of the Assembly, then who puts up the checkpoints etc 

 

OR

 

2..the actual steps to stop a border. E.g. Assembly meets to consider, UK / EU lawyers / USA intervenes etc

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Thanks

 

I'm asking about the practical steps 

 

1. E.g. UK and EU discussions, involvement of the Assembly, then who puts up the checkpoints etc 

 

OR

 

2..the actual steps to stop a border. E.g. Assembly meets to consider, UK / EU lawyers / USA intervenes etc

1. I think as soon as a no deal becomes inevitable some sort of transition will be agreed which avoids an immediate hard border (which is impracticable anyway). I don't think that border controls are within the remit of the Assembly. And so any border controls would be the responsibilty of the UK and ROI governments.

2. And the Assembly, the EU and (above all! ) the USA in the event of no deal have no.powers to intervene (that hasn't stopped the USA in the past of course but I think.the marines invading can probably be ruled out in this case).

[Mikey1874]

So no hard border then. Like we've said from the start. 

[Cade]

May's deluded about this vote tomorrow.

She thinks that if the amendment passes, that she can go to the EU and say "The UK parliament rejects the backstop, so you are going to have to move"

And the EU will simply laugh at her, refuse to budge and we go right back to where we were last week when her deal got voted down in Parliament.

Deadlocked with a ticking clock.

 

As to the Irish border, I believe that Ireland is getting troops and extra customs officials ready to move up to the border in 59 day's time if the Brexit shambles isn't sorted out.

[sairyinthat]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

1. I think as soon as a no deal becomes inevitable some sort of transition will be agreed which avoids an immediate hard border (which is impracticable anyway). I don't think that border controls are within the remit of the Assembly. And so any border controls would be the responsibilty of the UK and ROI governments.

2. And the Assembly, the EU and (above all! ) the USA in the event of no deal have no.powers to intervene (that hasn't stopped the USA in the past of course but I think.the marines invading can probably be ruled out in this case).

 

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

So no hard border then. Like we've said from the start. 

Then the EU will have to amend /change their rule or expel/suspend Southern Ireland from the club I would imagine they piggy backed entry on the UK as I doubt they would have been seen as a beneficial partner to the Union without the UK.Probably offend some but what do they actually bring to the Community I apologise in advance. 

[jake]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

No, based on your history of trolling that is not clear at all.

 

Putting aside that the document contains the word "border" ten times and the phrase "all-island" six times, the treaty (not "international treaty"--it is a treaty, full stop) establishes, among other bodies, the North-South Ministerial Council, which necessarily deals with cross-border issues and indeed possesses powers that affect the whole of the island.

 

Even if we were to ignore all of this, the practicality imposed by a couple of decades of Good Friday Agreement policy and economic developments means a hard border is functionally impossible. One small example of many is that Northern Ireland does not have the infrastructure to generate all its own electricity. A hard border cannot happen, and the Good Friday Agreement could not have been crafted in the fashion it was had the UK not been a member of the EU in 1998.

 

All of that is even if none of those words appeared anywhere in the text of the agreement. The necessity of reality wins out regardless.

And ?

[jake]

BBC news.

Food supplies.

Quality comment from boy who said the country could do with missing some food for a while.

 

Environmentally it's also a good thing.

 

Moving forward leaving the EU behind.

 

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

A point completely missed by everyone it seems. 

 

I was reading the piece, and wondering why this American writer had so much to say about India and Pakistan, so I thought I'd better check who the writer was. 

[Mikey1874]

29 minutes ago, Cade said:

May's deluded about this vote tomorrow.

She thinks that if the amendment passes, that she can go to the EU and say "The UK parliament rejects the backstop, so you are going to have to move"

And the EU will simply laugh at her, refuse to budge and we go right back to where we were last week when her deal got voted down in Parliament.

Deadlocked with a ticking clock.

 

As to the Irish border, I believe that Ireland is getting troops and extra customs officials ready to move up to the border in 59 day's time if the Brexit shambles isn't sorted out.

 

25 minutes ago, sairyinthat said:

 

Then the EU will have to amend /change their rule or expel/suspend Southern Ireland from the club I would imagine they piggy backed entry on the UK as I doubt they would have been seen as a beneficial partner to the Union without the UK.Probably offend some but what do they actually bring to the Community I apologise in advance. 

 

May must know the EU won't budge

 

Maybe the customs union option voted through by Labour was always her cunning plan. 

 

Avoiding backstop and/or hard border  = customs union. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, Cade said:

Lots of contradictions there. 

Something's got to give way.

 

Someone had a clever wheeze which involved Parliament deciding to remove the backstop, although it's not clear whether they then expected the EU 27 to say "righto chaps, jolly good" or else planned to have Her Majesty issue an instruction to the EU 27 to comply with the sovereign will of Parliament.

 

But in any case it doesn't matter, because the ERG and the DUP won't go along with the idea 'n'all'n'anyways.

 

Next........

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Why just make shit up like this? To what end?

 

To piss you off.

 

But don't pay it forward. 

[jake]

Oh come on.

BBC news last piece.

The bit where she stocked up on pasta sauce.

????????? 

 

Its unbelievable ???? 

 

????

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

...history of t******g...

 

 

Leaving that aside, the reason the backstop is needed is to avoid a hard border that would damage the GFA. 

 

Who said that? 

 

The British Government said that, when it was trying to persuade the EU to commence post-Brexit agreement talks early.

 

Unless the British Government was lying, in which case why should the EU 27 trust them anyway.

 

The UK Government said it had alternative plans that would also avoid a hard border.  These plans have never materialised, despite repeated requests from the EU 27 for more information about them.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

22 minutes ago, jake said:

BBC news.

Food supplies.

Quality comment from boy who said the country could do with missing some food for a while.

 

Environmentally it's also a good thing.

 

Moving forward leaving the EU behind.

 

 

Also a good thing from the stand point of the 'Obesity Crisis' we keep hearing about. 

 

Noticed McDonald's & KFC logo's on the BBC report, please tell me that McDonald's & KFC didn't sign this letter as well, McDonald's & KFC FFS, as if they give a shit about food supplies, all they are worried about is their profit margin taking a hit & feck all else.