Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Francis Albert]

57 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Do u think the Yanks would put up with the price of petrol/Diesel. Would tf. 

I did work in the oil and gas industry for over 30 years and may be able to help.

The Yanks have had to put up with the OPEC decision back in the 70s (reasonable in my opinion, and an example that it is a pity Scotland was not in a position to follow) that the oil and gas producing countries should secure the greater part of the profits rather than the international oil companies. (Despite a few failed attempts to reverse this by the odd Middle East war).

Petrol prices in the US as a result grew and remain today at a multiple of pre-OPEC levels, as was and is the case here. US prices are below ours, in large part because of much lower taxes on petrol but also because of the boom in production from shale, Americans (and Canadians) having huge reserves and being quite a bit less fussy than we are about the environmental impact of such production.

 

PS I see from your post that there is something at least we agree on!

Edited September 24, 2018 by Francis Albert

[ri Alban]

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I did work in the oil and gas industry for over 30 years and may be able to help.

The Yanks have had to put up with the OPEC decision back in the 70s (reasonable in my opinion, and an example that it is a pity Scotland was not in a position to follow) that the oil and gas producing countries should secure the greater part of the profits rather than the international oil companies. (Despite a few failed attempts to reverse this by the odd Middle East war).

Petrol prices in the US as a result grew and remain today at a multiple of pre-OPEC levels, as was and is the case here. US prices are below ours, in large part because of much lower taxes on petrol but also because of the boom in production from shale, Americans (and Canadians) having huge reserves and being quite a bit less fussy than we are about the environmental impact of such production.

 

PS I see from your post that there is something at least we agree on!

Cheers?

[redjambo]

15 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'm not suggesting that civil servants should set directions - that's what elected politicians are for.

 

I am also not suggesting that politicians should negotiate or micro-manage - that's what professional civil servants are for.

 

Anyway, I can't understand why people would even want to characterise the Brexit negotiations as a failure, or for that matter a success.  First of all, they aren't finished.  Secondly, negotiations don't fail or succeed; they just end.  All disagreements and conflicts eventually reach an end, whether by negotiation or not.

 

I disagree. Although success and failure are concepts on a scale rather than a binary concept, if you enter into negotiations and at the end of them you get what you want, or what you can live with if you're less fussy, then you can consider them a success. If you don't, they're a failure. It all depends on attitude, I suppose, but you can certainly consider negotiations to have succeeded or failed, from your point of view anyway.

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

I disagree. Although success and failure are concepts on a scale rather than a binary concept, if you enter into negotiations and at the end of them you get what you want, or what you can live with if you're less fussy, then you can consider them a success. If you don't, they're a failure. It all depends on attitude, I suppose, but you can certainly consider negotiations to have succeeded or failed, from your point of view anyway.

 

I've highlighted two pieces of text.  Success and failure are tricky concepts, and very much in the eye of the beholder.

 

I'd also say that if you don't get what you want from a negotiation (or maybe even if you do), you need to measure that against the best alternative you have to a negotiated settlement.  If that best alternative is better than you can negotiate, then the best way to make your negotiation a success is to stop.  If that best alternative is worse than you can negotiate, you can consider your negotiation a "failure".  But you have to ask yourself is that because the negotiation went badly or because your expectations of the process were too high considering how poor your alternative was.

 

I once sat in with a fella I worked for on a negotiation with a trade union that started after several weeks of industrial action.  We rapidly found ourselves in a position where the union was just rolling over and we were getting everything we wanted.  I thought it was too easy, but I also thought "so what?"  He was unhappy with the way things went, because he was convinced that the deal would come back to haunt all of us.  We signed an agreement, and a year later there was so much hassle and strife from over 5,000 people affected that we had to do another deal to give back some of what we'd "won" the first time.

 

He defined a good negotiation as one that went well from everyone's point of view, and he didn't tend to cast negotiations in terms of "winning and losing".  He once described negotiating as "mooching around trying to arrive at the same answer to a shared problem".  That sounds humorous to the point of silliness - yet he was a phenomenal negotiator.

[Francis Albert]

13 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I've highlighted two pieces of text.  Success and failure are tricky concepts, and very much in the eye of the beholder.

 

I'd also say that if you don't get what you want from a negotiation (or maybe even if you do), you need to measure that against the best alternative you have to a negotiated settlement.  If that best alternative is better than you can negotiate, then the best way to make your negotiation a success is to stop.  If that best alternative is worse than you can negotiate, you can consider your negotiation a "failure".  But you have to ask yourself is that because the negotiation went badly or because your expectations of the process were too high considering how poor your alternative was.

 

I once sat in with a fella I worked for on a negotiation with a trade union that started after several weeks of industrial action.  We rapidly found ourselves in a position where the union was just rolling over and we were getting everything we wanted.  I thought it was too easy, but I also thought "so what?"  He was unhappy with the way things went, because he was convinced that the deal would come back to haunt all of us.  We signed an agreement, and a year later there was so much hassle and strife from over 5,000 people affected that we had to do another deal to give back some of what we'd "won" the first time.

 

He defined a good negotiation as one that went well from everyone's point of view, and he didn't tend to cast negotiations in terms of "winning and losing".  He once described negotiating as "mooching around trying to arrive at the same answer to a shared problem".  That sounds humorous to the point of silliness - yet he was a phenomenal negotiator.

Success and failure are indeed tricky to define.

Having been involved in negotiations for a couple of decades and more I think however a negotiation that concludes with a deal that has to be renegotiated in a year's time can fairly (and objectively) be described as a failure. The "fella" seems even to have recognised that at the time the first deal was struck.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Success and failure are indeed tricky to define.

Having been involved in negotiations for a couple of decades and more I think however a negotiation that concludes with a deal that has to be renegotiated in a year's time can fairly (and objectively) be described as a failure. The "fella" seems even to have recognised that at the time the first deal was struck.

 

Oh good, you seem to have realised the point of the story.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Oh good, you seem to have realised the point of the story.

 

I suspected, though I didn't think it would be this soon, that it wouldn't be long before you reneged on your promise (or was it a threat) in your long rant the other day that you would never pay attention or respond to me again because I am incapable of honest debate ... added to your previous assertions (without justification or substantiation)  that I am a nasty piece of work, a liar and a racist. (Trump fan also I think).

Anyway you also posted the other day (in familiar  sonorous and faux- profound style) that negotiations don't succeed or fail, they just end (in the post redjambo was replying to I think). As you accept,  the point of your wee story confirms that sometimes they do end in failure. And of course history is full of examples.

But don't worry, none of us are entirely consistent.

[redjambo]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Oh good, you seem to have realised the point of the story.

 

 

One of the most difficult things to put into practice is forgetting, or at least putting aside, our histories with folk when interacting with them.

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

[edited to remove inaccuracy]

 

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

One of the most difficult things to put into practice is forgetting, or at least putting aside, our histories with folk when interacting with them.

 

I preferred Guildford Jambo, to be honest. 

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I preferred Guildford Jambo, to be honest. 

 

There's always another one comes along anyway...

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

There's always another one comes along anyway...

 

There surely is.

 

Anyway, rookie error on my part, but not one I'll be repeating. 

[ri Alban]

On 24/09/2018 at 13:58, Francis Albert said:

 

You need to read the Belfast agreement again. Especially the bit about the freedom of Unionists  to be British(I know) and Republicans to be Irish. If a border goes up then what?

 

Thank God you and your dear leader Trump have no part in this. (Peace would've been an impossibility), It's bad enough with this current Tory mob. 

John Major must be totally depressed watching this. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by ri Alban

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

You need to read the Belfast agreement again. Especially the bit about the freedom of Unionists  to be British(I know) and Republicans to be Irish. If a border goes up then what?

 

Thank God you and your dear leader Trump have no part in this. (Peace would've been an impossibility), It's bad enough with this current Tory mob. 

John Major must be totally depressed watching this. 

I assume you couldn't find the border (or lack of one) mentioned in the GFA/Belfast Agreement either.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I assume you couldn't find the border (or lack of one) mentioned in the GFA/Belfast Agreement either.

 

Which does beg the question why have the EU conflated the two and added in the possible return to "the troubles"?

Edited October 25, 2018 by Seymour M Hersh

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Which does beg the question why have the EU conflated the two and added in the possible return to "the troubles"?

A hard border starts to alter the decommissioning and normalisation party of the agreement.

This included commitment to removal of security installation.

Be very easy for parties to point out a manned checkpoint is a security installation.

I'm sure there will be other parts that could be cause for trouble.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

A hard border starts to alter the decommissioning and normalisation party of the agreement.

This included commitment to removal of security installation.

Be very easy for parties to point out a manned checkpoint is a security installation.

I'm sure there will be other parts that could be cause for trouble.

I have now posted several times over several weeks that the Good Friday Agreement says nothing about the border or absence of border controls, in response to claims that it does. Since no-one has refuted my assertion I am confident (despite suspecting  I had missed something) that that is the case. No-one has suggested initiating security installations on the border - that issue would only arise if violence began again. The threat or promise to blow up non-invasive controls such as number plate recognition cameras is a sign that some would be prepared to return to violence with minimal excuse, but not as a result of any breach of the GFA. Years after the agreement I had assumed arms decommissioning was supposed to be complete so what we are talking about here is the threat of recommissioning.

 

I understand that Brexit creates a risk of renewed violence but not resulting as so often claimed from breach of the GFA by the UK in anything suggested so far.

 

The EU which as I recall did little as an institution to bring peace to Northern Ireland (as David Trimble said they turned up late in the day to share credit for the GFA with those who negotiated the deal with mediation and help from US Senator George Mitchell and the Clinton administration) . Since the Brexit vote the EU has used the threat of renewed violence as a major (perhaps the major) weapon in its approach while claiming (along with UK Remainers) that this was because the UK was breaching or threatening to breach the Good Friday Agreement.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

21 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have now posted several times over several weeks that the Good Friday Agreement says nothing about the border or absence of border controls, in response to claims that it does. Since no-one has refuted my assertion I am confident (despite suspecting  I had missed something) that that is the case. No-one has suggested initiating security installations on the border - that issue would only arise if violence began again. The threat or promise to blow up non-invasive controls such as number plate recognition cameras is a sign that some would be prepared to return to violence with minimal excuse, but not as a result of any breach of the GFA. Years after the agreement I had assumed arms decommissioning was supposed to be complete so what we are talking about here is the threat of recommissioning.

 

I understand that Brexit creates a risk of renewed violence but not resulting as so often claimed from breach of the GFA by the UK in anything suggested so far.

 

The EU which as I recall did little as an institution to bring peace to Northern Ireland (as David Trimble said they turned up late in the day to share credit for the GFA with those who negotiated the deal with mediation and help from US Senator George Mitchell and the Clinton administration) . Since the Brexit vote the EU has used the threat of renewed violence as a major (perhaps the major) weapon in its approach while claiming (along with UK Remainers) that this was because the UK was breaching or threatening to breach the Good Friday Agreement.

Not getting into an argument, my point stands.

A border control point for passport checks is a security point, regardless if nutters do or don't attack it.

And they are part of the gfa.

Doesn't say border as you say, but I assume check points would be on the border.

If it's not an issue can you e-mail Europe and help them out as lots of people seem to be stuck on this.

Cheers

[Francis Albert]

49 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Not getting into an argument, my point stands.

A border control point for passport checks is a security point, regardless if nutters do or don't attack it.

And they are part of the gfa.

Doesn't say border as you say, but I assume check points would be on the border.

If it's not an issue can you e-mail Europe and help them out as lots of people seem to be stuck on this.

Cheers

The very small section which mentions security installations is clearly in context about the removal of exceptional military and police installations put in place during the "troubles".

No-one is suggesting passport controls for individuals but some form of customs post (not necessarily  a physical barrier) relating to the flow of goods. I would not classify a customs post as a security installation any more than I would so classify the network of cameras ringing central London which ensure that I pay a charge  every time I drive into that part of the city. But lets not get into an argument. But I would say that the border issue is a molehill grown into a mountain by the EU and Remainers by (in part at least) exploiting the threat of terrorist violence. 

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Not getting into an argument, my point stands.

A border control point for passport checks is a security point, regardless if nutters do or don't attack it.

And they are part of the gfa.

Doesn't say border as you say, but I assume check points would be on the border.

If it's not an issue can you e-mail Europe and help them out as lots of people seem to be stuck on this.

Cheers

 

The success of the political process in NI depends on a number of features being in place.  One of those is an invisible border.  If the border is made visible, it becomes obvious, and one of the key supports of the process will give way.

 

It's simple enough to understand, if you've ever been there and seen this strange border in action (or inaction).  It's also really difficult to understand, if you haven't done that.  This weekend I'll cross the border a minimum of four, and possibly eight times, but if I'm not looking out I'll miss it.  I've even been looking out and missed it.

 

It's so significant, and so well-known, that the British Government committed in the Brexit discussions to avoiding a visible border.  Now they seem to have no idea how to deliver that - but they committed to doing so nearly a year ago.  Either they were being dishonest, or they thought it would be easier than it is.  I think the latter explanation makes more sense, and is very much in line with the Keystone Cops approach that the British Government has adopted to Brexit generally.

[Scnorthedinburgh]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

The success of the political process in NI depends on a number of features being in place.  One of those is an invisible border.  If the border is made visible, it becomes obvious, and one of the key supports of the process will give way.

 

It's simple enough to understand, if you've ever been there and seen this strange border in action (or inaction).  It's also really difficult to understand, if you haven't done that.  This weekend I'll cross the border a minimum of four, and possibly eight times, but if I'm not looking out I'll miss it.  I've even been looking out and missed it.

 

It's so significant, and so well-known, that the British Government committed in the Brexit discussions to avoiding a visible border.  Now they seem to have no idea how to deliver that - but they committed to doing so nearly a year ago.  Either they were being dishonest, or they thought it would be easier than it is.  I think the latter explanation makes more sense, and is very much in line with the Keystone Cops approach that the British Government has adopted to Brexit generally.

A very sensible post.

[ri Alban]

On 25/10/2018 at 10:33, Francis Albert said:

I assume you couldn't find the border (or lack of one) mentioned in the GFA/Belfast Agreement either.

FA, I'll put it to you this way. If you're from NI and identify yourself as an Irishman, then the border goes up. That makes you, for argument sake, British. And that goes against the GFA agreement. 

 

You say you're a democrate, but it seems like other Brexiteers, that only your referendum counts. Never mind the GFA or the guarantee of EU membership to bribe a vastly remain Scotland. 

Democracy my arse! 

[frankblack]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

FA, I'll put it to you this way. If you're from NI and identify yourself as an Irishman, then the border goes up. That makes you, for argument sake, British. And that goes against the GFA agreement. 

 

You say you're a democrate, but it seems like other Brexiteers, that only your referendum counts. Never mind the GFA or the guarantee of EU membership to bribe a vastly remain Scotland. 

Democracy my arse! 

 

So, to sum it up, you admit that FA is correct that there is no border mentioned in the GFA/Belfast agreement, and remainers are shit-stirring over one.

[Cade]

Raab says he didn't know how important the Dover/Calais crossing was for UK trade.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

5 hours ago, Cade said:

Raab says he didn't know how important the Dover/Calais crossing was for UK trade.

 

And yet 'we' send this utter helmet to secure a deal which impacts all of our futures. 

Jesus would indeed weep. 

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, Cade said:

Raab says he didn't know how important the Dover/Calais crossing was for UK trade.

 

Bizarre i agree. But far more important to UK trade than Dover-Calais are the huge container ports which have long operated a technical solution to pretty frictionless transfers of goods. A solution known as moonbeams by Remoaners.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

And yet 'we' send this utter helmet to secure a deal which impacts all of our futures. 

Jesus would indeed weep. 

 

No, we send Civil Servants to do the deals, Raab & Barnier are merely the photo boys who are rolled out every few weeks after meeting for a couple of hours, shake hands, get some photo's taken, smile at the camera's and then leave the real work to the minions working behind the scenes.

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

No, we send Civil Servants to do the deals, Raab & Barnier are merely the photo boys who are rolled out every few weeks after meeting for a couple of hours, shake hands, get some photo's taken, smile at the camera's and then leave the real work to the minions working behind the scenes.

Oh goody, even bigger muppets. 

[Notts1874]

Jo Johnson, brother of Boris has just resigned from the government over Brexit. Now backs a 2nd referendum. As Transport Minister has was heavily involved in planning for this. Will more follow?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Notts1874 said:

Jo Johnson, brother of Boris has just resigned from the government over Brexit. Now backs a 2nd referendum. As Transport Minister has was heavily involved in planning for this. Will more follow?

Second referendum with what choice? I'd guess Mays deal or no deal?

 

I only saw the news in a pub without sound but his resignation seemed to get totally OTT coverage. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Seems like everything’s well on course 

[Cade]

EU begins proceedings against the Isle of Man for its tax loopholes.

An estimated £790million in VAT has been lost due to people importing private jets via IoM.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

The idea that civil servants are neutral and apolitical is one of the great myths of our time and indeed previous times. The left should know this better than most. As for Brexit the EU offers great career opportunities and pension enhancement in the great Brussels/Strasbourg trough not to mention numerous EU agencies. 

[Don Dan]

Getting closer, maybe?

 

Theresa May is to chair a special cabinet meeting on Wednesday to discuss a draft Brexit withdrawal agreement.
A cabinet source has told BBC the text has been agreed at a technical level by officials from both sides after intensive talks this week. 
The Sun reported that every minister was being asked to see the PM for one-to-one talks on Tuesday evening. 
The future of the Irish border has been the last major outstanding issue to be settled in the negotiations.
Earlier, ministers said they would publish a "full legal statement" before MPs vote on any agreement. 
The undertaking was given as the government faced near certain defeat in the Commons over whether to publish the legal advice it gets about the terms of the UK's withdrawal. 
■   Reality Check: When is the crunch time?
■   A brief guide to where we are with Brexit
■   'Travesty' not to have new Brexit vote 
■   Brexit: All you need to know
The Democratic Unionists, on whom the PM relies for her Commons majority, said they would vote for Labour's motion urging disclosure of "the full and final advice" given by Attorney General Geoffrey Cox to the cabinet.
An influential group of Tory Brexiteers also said they would not oppose the move, which was later passed unopposed in the Commons. 
During a 45-minute discussion on Brexit, the cabinet were briefed on the state of the negotiations, as well as planning for different scenarios ahead of the UK's scheduled exit on 29 March, 2019.
No 10 said the prime minister had told colleagues progress had been made since the last cabinet meeting a week ago but there were a "small number of outstanding issues as the UK pushes for the best text" and work was continuing.
The BBC's Norman Smith said it was thought the only "substantive" area of disagreement left was over the mechanism for the UK to exit the proposed "backstop" customs arrangement - referring to the fallback plans to guarantee there will be no new visible checks on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
On Monday night, some cabinet ministers met for drinks in Mr Fox's office to discuss Brexit, including no-deal plans and the Irish "backstop". 
Mr Fox told the BBC's Iain Watson there were "still issues" with the backstop and negotiators were having a "number of difficult discussions". 
The prime minister is under pressure from both Brexiteers and pro-EU MPs as she tries to seal a deal with the EU on the terms for the UK's exit,
Another late night
BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming
The negotiating teams stayed up late again, but not as late as on Sunday. At issue is the mechanism for terminating the Northern Irish backstop - if it's ever used. 
Should it be a decision for the EU-UK joint committee that will be set up to manage the Brexit treaty or for a separate arbitration panel where UK and EU representatives would be joined by an independent figure from somewhere else? 
There is also a tussle within the EU27 over Britain's idea for a UK-wide customs arrangement as an alternative to the EU's Northern Ireland-only option. 
Some member states see this as giving access to the single market, which should be accompanied by guarantees on other things such as fishing rights and environmental standards. 
The European Commission has tried to reassure them, saying it is still only an insurance policy - not the final trade deal - and that it's just a way to get the British cabinet to approve the Brexit treaty. 
■   Laura Kuenssberg: Delay or decision?
Both the UK and EU want to schedule a special summit of European leaders at the end of November to sign off the withdrawal deal, but time is running out.
Brussels says it will only agree to put the wheels in motion for the summit if agreement can be reached on the issue of the Irish border.
If a deal can be reached with the EU in time, Mrs May will then need to persuade her party - and the rest of Parliament - to support it in a key Commons vote.
Following pressure from all sides of the House of Commons, ministers have agreed to provide MPs with a legal assessment of the implications for the UK of the backstop and other controversial aspects of any deal.
Cabinet Office minister David Lidington said Mr Cox, who is the government's senior legal adviser, would make a statement to MPs and take questions ahead of the final vote on any Brexit deal.
MPs, he said, would get to see "a full reasoned position statement laying out the government's both political and also legal position on the proposed withdrawal agreement". 
■   Brexit and Ireland: The 310-mile problem
■   Q&A: The Irish border backstop
■   Bisto owner plans Brexit stockpile
The concession reflects the wording of a compromise amendment supported by a number of Tory members of the European Research Group which was not selected for debate. 
The DUP's Westminster leader Nigel Dodds said he was pleased Parliament had "asserted its will" as it was imperative that all parties to the deal were clear in what way and for how long it would "legally bind" the UK. 
In a speech on Monday evening, Mrs May said the "endgame" in the negotiations had been reached and while both sides wanted an agreement, the issues at stake were "immensely difficult". 
But Boris Johnson, who quit as foreign secretary in July in protest at Theresa May's strategy, hit out at what he claimed was a "stage-managed delay" in reaching an agreement.

 

[Mark M]

European Army now openly called for by little Napoleon and the former East German Youth recruiter.

 

Anyway, it's reassuring the twenty something luvvie brigade know that direct democracy is all too much for us in any case.  It's not like the 20th century has any examples of a superstate using its military might to crush dissent.

 

Can any second referendum fan honestly say with a straight face that a future EU with UK membership would not include Gammons in Gulags? 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

That would be hilarious, re gammon.

 

[Victorian]

No10 briefing senior cabinet members in individual meetings...

 

... because they basically have to be prevented from paggering.

 

She has NO chance of getting this through the commons.       Absolute fantasy land.     The ballot boxes are coming out.

[Cade]

No danger this is ever getting through Parliament.

 

Get ready for a no confidence vote and GE.

 

[pablo]

Don't disagree that it won't get through Parliament. I'm also in favour of a second vote.

But party politics aside, May is one of the most resilient feckers I've ever seen. Would seem churlish to not recognise that. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by pablo

[Victorian]

Mike Russell was complaining that he did not receive much of a briefing during his meeting with David Mundell.    

 

Stress not,  Mike.     Mundell probably hasn't been briefed on it himself.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

No danger this is ever getting through Parliament.

 

Get ready for a no confidence vote and GE.

 

 

Wouldn't get your hopes up, there may well be a no confidence vote for Theresa May, but not for the Government.

 

The Tories will still be there come 2022, unless it's them who call a GE.

[jake]

Crucial times.

Channel 4 reporting the heavyweight Gary Linekar to speak on the matter.

That's after a brexit minute which interviewed a teenager who surprisingly wanted to fit in with Scottish teenagers.

 

 

That's the level of argument that we are bombarded with.

 

Great eh?

[Mark M]

Say what you like about Trump but he would not negotiate a deal like that awful alien robot  has. Like trading a reliable Vauxhall in for a three wheeler from the 80s. 

[Don Dan]

10 minutes ago, Mark M said:

Say what you like about Trump but he would not negotiate a deal like that awful alien robot  has. Like trading a reliable Vauxhall in for a three wheeler from the 80s. 

 

If this goes wrong we may all need a Trotters Traders Van to survive? ?

[jake]

7 minutes ago, Mark M said:

Say what you like about Trump but he would not negotiate a deal like that awful alien robot  has. Like trading a reliable Vauxhall in for a three wheeler from the 80s. 

Not great examples if I'm honest.

 

Not keen on the judgement or application of Trump .

And vauxhaul and robins is kind of going pre Thatcher.

?

Alien robot is as brutal as wee krankie

 

 

[jake]

3 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

If this goes wrong we may all need a Trotters Traders Van to survive? ?

Survive what?

 

 

[Don Dan]

14 minutes ago, jake said:

Survive what?

 

 

 

A bad deal ?

[Mikey1874]

It all kicks off now. 

 

Who knows where we'll end up. 

 

 

[jake]

13 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

A bad deal ?

?

[jake]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

It all kicks off now. 

 

Who knows where we'll end up. 

 

 

Working too much 

Not enough resources to go round

An increase in the gap between rich and poor

War

Famine

Genocide 

Hunger

 

Much the same as it is now.

 

We can look back and say at least we got cheap fags for a while

?