Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

One of the problem for the Tories is that they blatantly hoped/thought that the Brexit vote would leave to other countries threaten to leave or actually leaving the EU, weakening the whole structure. It hasn’t happened and they’ve got no leverage. A picture of total incompetence at the moment.

 

The Mail can **** right off btw

[gashauskis9]

The extension of talks suggests to me that there will be a deal.  I think all the negativity from both sides is to make them look better once it’s announced.  “We worked tirelessly to get to this point for the benefit of both parties”.

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

4 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

If the requirement that 'nothing's agreed until everything is agreed' is relaxed, then the 97%-98% of the trade deal which is reported to have been agreed, could then be implimented on the 1st January and that they agree to continue talking on the remaining outstanding issues.

 

Both sides avoid the disruption of a no deal and politically both sides can claim a win, of sorts.

 

Or is this too much like common sense?

 

 

23 minutes ago, gashauskis9 said:

The extension of talks suggests to me that there will be a deal.  I think all the negativity from both sides is to make them look better once it’s announced.  “We worked tirelessly to get to this point for the benefit of both parties”.

 

 

Both sensible posts.

 

Unfortunately Doris has to get anything he 'agrees' past the rabid faction of his own party who want a no deal, because its what we voted for likesy. 

 

Its no deal. There's too much money to be made on the stock and currency markets for his enablers for that not to happen now. 

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

If the requirement that 'nothing's agreed until everything is agreed' is relaxed, then the 97%-98% of the trade deal which is reported to have been agreed, could then be implimented on the 1st January and that they agree to continue talking on the remaining outstanding issues.

 

Both sides avoid the disruption of a no deal and politically both sides can claim a win, of sorts.

 

Or is this too much like common sense?

 

 

That depends on how you define 97-98%.  I suspect they mean 97-98% of the words, but in that case most of the trade restrictions would have to stay in place because of the inability of the two sides to agree how to manage and police compliance.

 

The only other available approach currently is another extension, but realistically the British government can't wear that.

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The level playing field can surely be fudged. Given these things are a fudge. 

 

 

The LPF can be fudged as long as there's no doubt that the EU can block British imports (or hit them with additional paperwork or tariffs) if It needs to do so.  The same actually applies the other way round, but the UK government isn't in a position to say so (because that concedes the point to the EU).

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, gashauskis9 said:

The extension of talks suggests to me that there will be a deal.  I think all the negativity from both sides is to make them look better once it’s announced.  “We worked tirelessly to get to this point for the benefit of both parties”.

 

 

 

By definition, the talks have to collapse or succeed right at the last minute.  Otherwise, the negotiators are open to accusations from their own side that they didn't try hard enough to reach a deal or didn't try hard enough to defend a line.

[Mikey1874]

29 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

By definition, the talks have to collapse or succeed right at the last minute.  Otherwise, the negotiators are open to accusations from their own side that they didn't try hard enough to reach a deal or didn't try hard enough to defend a line.

 

What was actually conceded to get a deal and explaining that is the tricky bit. 

[Ulysses]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

What was actually conceded to get a deal and explaining that is the tricky bit. 

 

No deal is also difficult to explain if it happens too early, because you have to explain to those with extreme views on your side why you left early instead of forcing the other side into an abject surrender.

[Beni]

8 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

I voted remain but we are where we are and some strange people are now happy to roll over and accept a shafting from the EU because the Tories are in charge yet it was the Labour voters in the North of England who swung the Leave vote. 
 

 

Sorry, I assumed from the tone of your posts that you were a leaver.

I don't think the EU are guilty of shafting the UK, they are predictably looking after the best interests of their remaining members, they've consistently said any deal world be worse than membership, but it will be of benefit to all sides to get some sort of deal.

People are angry because the likes of Johnson told lies to win the vote, and those lies are now being exposed. You shouldn't be angry at voters (Labour or Tory) who fell for the conmen's lies, you should be angry at the conmen.

[Cade]

[Konrad von Carstein]

30 minutes ago, fancy a brew said:

 

Sorry, I assumed from the tone of your posts that you were a leaver.

I don't think the EU are guilty of shafting the UK, they are predictably looking after the best interests of their remaining members, they've consistently said any deal world be worse than membership, but it will be of benefit to all sides to get some sort of deal.

People are angry because the likes of Johnson told lies to win the vote, and those lies are now being exposed. You shouldn't be angry at voters (Labour or Tory) who fell for the conmen's lies, you should be angry at the conmen.

 

Him and Piers Morgan both claim that they voted Remain Pwahahahaha!! 

[Francis Albert]

.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

Both sensible posts.

 

Unfortunately Doris has to get anything he 'agrees' past the rabid faction of his own party who want a no deal, because its what we voted for likesy. 

 

Its no deal. There's too much money to be made on the stock and currency markets for his enablers for that not to happen now. 

There are not enough ERG types to cause Parliament to reject any deal Boris secures. 

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Shafting the UK? Maybe a strong word and maybe quid pro quo. But the EU has I believe 30 odd trade agreements with other countries. Do any of them include access to the counterparty's territorial waters for fishing? Do any require the counterparty to comply with EU regulations whatever they may be now and in future with disputes being settled by EU courts. The EU good UK bad

characterisation of the negotiations  is as someone else posted a tad simplistic.

 

[Ulysses]

A good analysis today by the Spanish Foreign Minister, who pointed out that the problem with the UK's approach to the trade negotiations is that they are trying to use them for a purpose for which trade negotiations were not designed.  The UK is trying to use a trade agreement with the EU to assert its independence, but the purpose of trade agreements is not for the parties to assert their independence - it's to manage their interdependence.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

A good analysis today by the Spanish Foreign Minister, who pointed out that the problem with the UK's approach to the trade negotiations is that they are trying to use them for a purpose for which trade negotiations were not designed.  The UK is trying to use a trade agreement with the EU to assert its independence, but the purpose of trade agreements is not for the parties to assert their independence - it's to manage their interdependence.

I think the problem is more that while other trade agreements are based on a starting point of independence this one is not. 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I think the problem is more that while other trade agreements are based on a starting point of independence this one is not. 

 

I see what you mean, but I think that has as much to do with how the negotiators frame the problem as anything else.  The starting point is that the UK is an independent and sovereign nation, and the EU is a sovereign and independent trading bloc.  They both have an interdependence issue to manage, which relates to the substantial amount of trade that passes between them.  In that sense it's no different to any other trade negotiation.  There are differences in other respects, mainly related to the sheer scale of the trade and the long history of interdependence that the two blocs have, and those differences colour perceptions.  But however perceptions get coloured or distorted, it's still all about the landing zones (like all negotiations).  Both the EU and the UK are probably willing to make some degree of compromise or concession to land an agreement.  But if either side asks the other for something it can't give, then the sides won't find the landing zones. 

 

I'd imagine, for example, that the EU might concede a lot of its position on fish, but the price for that would be that the UK would get more limited and costly access to such things as the EU Common Aviation Market.  Likewise, the EU would probably back off on a lot of its position on the LPF on the understanding that both blocs would get considerably more restricted access to each other's markets, with a lot more by way of customs and regulatory checks which would slow down the movement of goods.  Those are my guesses, and there are probably many other variations on that theme.  These are all judgement calls, and they amount to a trade-off between "sovereignty" and "wealth" for both sides.  It can be argued that there's more pressure on the UK than the EU, because the UK has more "wealth" to lose in per capita terms, but is more anxious to gain "sovereignty".  But that's a question of perspective as well.  Across the EU as a whole it's true that the Union has less to lose than the UK, but that varies a lot between countries and in general the further east you go the less Brexit and the trade agreement is noticed - so there is pressure on some of the member states.

 

The other thing is that these negotiations are far from comprehensive.  They don't cover financial services, which are subject to a separate agreement process that is now pretty much impossible to conclude in time.  And there's also a set of negotiations on international trade in financial and other services under the aegis of the WTO.  A big element of that is the extent to which the EU is prepared to let the UK access its markets (and now the Canadians and the Americans see opportunities in the EU that weren't there before).

 

I also think it's going to be harder than we think for us all to get what we want - i.e. for a resolution to this business so we can all stop talking about it and get on with other priorities.  But I've a feeling that this won't go away all that easily, and we'll still be dealing with trade and other Brexit fallout issues for years to come.

[Norm]

Pottering about the house with Jeremy Vine on in the background and just heard the argument that we'll be fine with no deal because "We fought in two world wars". 

 

Glad that's us all sorted then. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Norm

[The Real Maroonblood]

24 minutes ago, Norm said:

Pottering about the house with Jeremy Vine on in the background and just heard the argument that we'll be fine with no deal because "We fought in two world wars". 

 

Glad that's us all sorted then. 

[Cade]

"blitz spirit"?

They cannae even queue at a supermarket and put a face mask on without losing their shit

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

Pottering about the house with Jeremy Vine on in the background and just heard the argument that we'll be fine with no deal because "We fought in two world wars". 

 

Glad that's us all sorted then. 

Deluded, out of touch, fools.

[Lone Striker]

On 13/12/2020 at 00:28, Ulysses said:

 

With all due respect, any analysis of the 2019 election result that ignores the incompetent leadership and poor campaign of the Labour party is itself open to a charge of being too simplistic.   I did imply it, but yes  I agree that Labour's dither and confused position greatly helped the Conservative position (the ambiguous but simple Get Brexit Done "policy")

 

Since the referendum result, it has been the job of the British government to implement Brexit, and implement it properly.  They've failed utterly in doing that, and the primary reason they failed was that they ignored all of the information and analysis about the EU that they had at their disposal.   It was not beyond their wit to tell people that it was game over for the relationship that the UK had with the EU, and that the negotiation was about pivoting away from trade with Europe while at the same time salvaging as much as possible of Britain's access to the EU marketplace.  Instead, they fed the voters complete bilge about oven-ready easy deals, like some kind of frozen food advertising slogan.  Good analysis.

 

It wasn't the public's fault that their politicians didn't given them information honestly.  The UK's political leaders haven't failed the disaster capitalists and the Eton and Harrow old pals' brigade, but they have failed the British people - Leave and Remain voters alike.  Fair comment - but the analogy with Trump's "Make America Great Again" in 2016 is pretty clear too.     Simple airy-fairy slogan ..... oddball leader ..... some nationalistic speeches ...... emphasise who the bogey-man is ...... and hey presto - loads of folk who don't follow politics suddenly vote for you.   

 

[Cade]

Barnier tells the EU that Boris has accepted the ratchet clause to prevent a trade war.

There will be a mechanism by which the EU can apply tariffs in response to any UK undercutting and de-regulation.

 

He also says that the UK had tabled sensible fishing proposals on Monday last week but withdrew it on Thursday.

 

 

[SectionDJambo]

3 hours ago, Cade said:

"blitz spirit"?

They cannae even queue at a supermarket and put a face mask on without losing their shit

And that's as well as panic buying and hoarding extra food and sanitary items that they don't need, preventing others from just getting their normal requirements. 

There's a lot of rubbish spouted about the so called "blitz spirit". Most of the people who showed that togetherness have long gone. The current inhabitants of the UK have, generally, shown themselves to be selfish and uncaring whenever a suggestion of a shortage or crisis emerges.

There are, of course, many good caring people too, but to suggest that the UK is some kind of beacon of mutual respect and togetherness is patronising nonsense. The demise of traditional, local industries has caused a severe decline in the way society operates these days, in my opinion. People in towns and villages tended to work and socialise together and use local shops and facilities. That has almost gone.

[Unknown user]

Ffs so now we're at Blitz Spirit stations.

 

Why would we need Blitz Spirit if this is going to be so brilliant?

 

Oh yeah

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Smithee

[redjambo]

2 hours ago, SectionDJambo said:

And that's as well as panic buying and hoarding extra food and sanitary items that they don't need, preventing others from just getting their normal requirements. 

There's a lot of rubbish spouted about the so called "blitz spirit". Most of the people who showed that togetherness have long gone. The current inhabitants of the UK have, generally, shown themselves to be selfish and uncaring whenever a suggestion of a shortage or crisis emerges.

There are, of course, many good caring people too, but to suggest that the UK is some kind of beacon of mutual respect and togetherness is patronising nonsense. The demise of traditional, local industries has caused a severe decline in the way society operates these days, in my opinion. People in towns and villages tended to work and socialise together and use local shops and facilities. That has almost gone.

 

[Ulysses]

14 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

With all due respect, any analysis of the 2019 election result that ignores the incompetent leadership and poor campaign of the Labour party is itself open to a charge of being too simplistic.   I did imply it, but yes  I agree that Labour's dither and confused position greatly helped the Conservative position (the ambiguous but simple Get Brexit Done "policy")

 

Since the referendum result, it has been the job of the British government to implement Brexit, and implement it properly.  They've failed utterly in doing that, and the primary reason they failed was that they ignored all of the information and analysis about the EU that they had at their disposal.   It was not beyond their wit to tell people that it was game over for the relationship that the UK had with the EU, and that the negotiation was about pivoting away from trade with Europe while at the same time salvaging as much as possible of Britain's access to the EU marketplace.  Instead, they fed the voters complete bilge about oven-ready easy deals, like some kind of frozen food advertising slogan.  Good analysis.

 

It wasn't the public's fault that their politicians didn't given them information honestly.  The UK's political leaders haven't failed the disaster capitalists and the Eton and Harrow old pals' brigade, but they have failed the British people - Leave and Remain voters alike.  Fair comment - but the analogy with Trump's "Make America Great Again" in 2016 is pretty clear too.     Simple airy-fairy slogan ..... oddball leader ..... some nationalistic speeches ...... emphasise who the bogey-man is ...... and hey presto - loads of folk who don't follow politics suddenly vote for you.   

 

 

 

Regrettably, simple slogans will swing a percentage of the voters every time.  My frustration with this whole affair is not that the UK Government was malign or "the bad guy".  I expected them to get stuck into the EU, and vice versa.  It's that they didn't own the project.  Whatever the likes of Cameron, Johnson and the various leaders of the Conservative party might have actually thought when the referendum result came in, they should have got together, figured out what the result meant they had to do to negotiate a sensible exit, told the British people what it would take and then gone and represented the people as best they could.  Instead, it's been posturing after posturing for the last four and a bit years.  Maybe they really believed the hype.  Gisela Stuart did - she admitted as much last week.   

 

It's also strange what you can get used to in politics.  A few years ago I worried about a Yes vote for independence in Scotland because of the risk of constitutional destabilising effects on this island.  But that worry passed, and now it doesn't matter.  As recently as 10-12 months ago I worried about a hard border on this island.  I don't care any more, because a hard border on this island would last for months at most, and in any case any instability arising from Brexit will be temporary and very minor in the scheme of the difficult changes that will happen here in the next 20-25 years.

 

History is never finished, I s'pose.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Ulysses

[pablo]

Read this lengthy but fascinating piece by Alistair Campbell earlier. It's worth it if you have the time. It's also terrifying, in a kind of light bulb moment.

 

Article here.

Edited December 15, 2020 by pablo

[Pasquale for King]

22 hours ago, Smithee said:

Ffs so now we're at Blitz Spirit stations.

 

Why would we need Blitz Spirit if this is going to be so brilliant?

 

Oh yeah

 

 

[Cade]

17 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

21 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

 

[Mysterion]

37 minutes ago, pablo said:

Read this lengthy but fascinating piece by Alistair Campbell earlier. It's worth it if you have the time. It's also terrifying, in a kind of light bulb moment.

 

Article here.

 

Thanks for sharing. 

Found it very interesting. 

 

[Beni]

2 hours ago, pablo said:

Read this lengthy but fascinating piece by Alistair Campbell earlier. It's worth it if you have the time. It's also terrifying, in a kind of light bulb moment.

 

Article here.

 

An interesting read, the people who were conned into supporting Brexit had no idea what they were really being used for. The picture below is pretty apt, as Johnson is nothing more than a useful idiot, who's lack of principles combined with hard to fathom popularity, made him the perfect front man for the con.

 

2 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The Political editor BBC Newsnight Nicholas Watt has tweeted several tweets that there is growing optimism that deal may have been done or is very close.

 

"Big buzz in the last hour among Tory MPs that the UK is heading towards a Brexit deal with the EU. Eurosceptics being reassured they will be happy."

 

"Nothing confirmed yet and MPs saying: many a slip between cup and lip. But MPs being told the signal will come if and when Jacob Rees-Mogg announces that the commons will sit on Monday and Tuesday next week. That would come before any UK / EU announcement"

 

"Interesting to see an informal cabinet push to reassure veteran Brexiteers. They are being told their concerns have been addressed. Key issue is over the level playing field - a mechanism in which EU and UK would observe common rules but in a way that would respect sovereignty"

 

"Brexiteers being reassured that the UK has seen off unilateral punishment by the EU if the UK diverges from EU standards in future - the “lightening tariffs”. They are being told UK has negotiated a joint dispute mechanism. That could lead to punishment if one side loses"

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, fancy a brew said:

 

An interesting read, the people who were conned into supporting Brexit had no idea what they were really being used for. The picture below is pretty apt, as Johnson is nothing more than a useful idiot, who's lack of principles combined with hard to fathom popularity, made him the perfect front man for the con.

 

 

Well put 

[Lone Striker]

7 hours ago, pablo said:

Read this lengthy but fascinating piece by Alistair Campbell earlier. It's worth it if you have the time. It's also terrifying, in a kind of light bulb moment.

 

Article here.

Interesting indeed.   A fair bit of it is a mix of Orwell's 1984 and the Illuminati theories over the least few decades.

 

 The philosophy described in the book  is similar - bend democracy to engineer  ways to disrupt & discredit organised collaborative cross-governmental bodies (EU, UN, etc)  ........ keep doing this to prolong a state of chaos throughout the world  ........ while the illuminati (sovereign individuals) form their own collaborative groupings to enhance their own selfish hobby of unfettered wealth generation.     

 

 It's vaguely similar to how organised crime works. 😲

 

 

[RobboM]

Just a thought as we move closer to the next deadline.

It has been 1,639 days since the referendum and 13 days till we crash out on a Ruritania style Brexit.

We still don't know what terms we leave on and we don't know what a No Deal exit will be like.

 

This from Feb last year

European Council President Donald Tusk has spoken of a "special place in hell" for "those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it out safely".

He was speaking after talks with Irish leader Leo Varadkar in Brussels.

Brexit-backing MPs reacted with anger to the comments, accusing Mr Tusk of "arrogance".

 

[Cade]

Time to find out if the quality of life and job prospects of 65million people are to be sacrificed for the sake of a handful of fishermen (who chose to sell their quotas in the first place).

 

50,000 retail jobs have been lost in the last month and nothing has been said.

8,000 fishermen that want a bigger slice of the pie start crying and the entire nation is placed as a bet.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

Time to find out if the quality of life and job prospects of 65million people are to be sacrificed for the sake of a handful of fishermen (who chose to sell their quotas in the first place).

 

50,000 retail jobs have been lost in the last month and nothing has been said.

8,000 fishermen that want a bigger slice of the pie start crying and the entire nation is placed as a bet.

 

The grifters are almost there. They can almost feel the obscene amounts of money from them hedging against the pound and the markets. 

 

Meanwhile the queues at Dover are already up to 10 miles this side and 6miles in France. 

[Mysterion]

13 minutes ago, Cade said:

Time to find out if the quality of life and job prospects of 65million people are to be sacrificed for the sake of a handful of fishermen (who chose to sell their quotas in the first place).

 

50,000 retail jobs have been lost in the last month and nothing has been said.

8,000 fishermen that want a bigger slice of the pie start crying and the entire nation is placed as a bet.

 

👏 👏👏 👏 

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Time to find out if the quality of life and job prospects of 65million people are to be sacrificed for the sake of a handful of fishermen (who chose to sell their quotas in the first place).

 

50,000 retail jobs have been lost in the last month and nothing has been said.

8,000 fishermen that want a bigger slice of the pie start crying and the entire nation is placed as a bet.

 

.... which makes no sense.  The major  reason for wanting a bigger slice of the pie can only be to sell more into the EU, since that's more important to them than the domestic market.   Are they REALLY prepared to risk a  no-deal outcome just to stop EU fishing fleets having the same continued access to our waters ?    Or even a possible compromise of reduced access ?    A certain consequence of no-deal would be tariffs on UK seafood being exported into the EU which would most likely reduce their sales income.

 

I feel sympathy for our small scale fishermen scraping a modest living, whose voices are probably being drowned out by the Mister Bigs  running large scale operations. 

 

Strange (some would say.... suspicious) differences in the soundbite noises coming from the UK government  (downbeat) yesterday compared to the those from EU (optimistic).   Anyone willing to guess what might be behind this ?

 

 

[OBE]

Shouldn't have been any Brexit negotiations. Any other club in the world (big or small) that has a half arsed constitution would've stipulated in the terms & conditions (prior to club launch) what legally, would be expected of both sides if a member decided to leave...all parties are guilty of this incredibly damaging oversight.

 

  

Edited December 18, 2020 by OBE

[Cade]

Yes, the entire fish thing is bollocks.

 

UK fishermen can catch all the fish inside UK waters if they want, but considering that 70% of what they catch is exported to the EU, I'm sure they'll have tariffs slapped on it, negating any increase in profits. 

And the red tape involved would mean that the fish wouldn't be able to be "just caught" fresh but frozen, further damaging the price.

 

Or they could try to sell it to a UK market that doesn't care about fish. Oversupply leads to price crashes. So again, they lose out.

 

The UK imports most of the seafood it consumes, and tariffs would also apply to that.

 

It is strange that the UK and EU like to eat fish that doesn't live in their waters and depending on importing what they do like from each other, but unless there is a sudden cultural shift in seafood preferences, then the status quo is the only sensible way forward.

 

The Tory maniacs aren't even trying to pretend that the fish thing is based on economics. It's 100% political and some insane hyper nationalist baws about sovereignty of waters.

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, OBE said:

Shouldn't have been any Brexit negotiations. Any other club in the world (big or small) that has a half arsed constitution would've stipulated in the terms & conditions (prior to club launch) what legally, would be expected of both sides if a member decided to leave...all parties are guilty of this incredibly damaging oversight.

There were stipulations, and IIRC Britain didn't fancy them - remember the "divorce bill"?

 

But I think you're missing the point of what's going on - we've left the EU.

What's happening now is creating a new agreement re the details of our future relationship, something that couldn't possibly be decided decades in advance.

 

As things stand, legally, once the transition ends we become a third party, as both sides knew and agreed to.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Smithee

[OBE]

Should've just shut up Smithee, thanks for explaining what I've missed.

 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

3 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The grifters are almost there. They can almost feel the obscene amounts of money from them hedging against the pound and the markets. 

 

Meanwhile the queues at Dover are already up to 10 miles this side and 6miles in France. 

Thing is, the grifters are doing nothing but their job. Not their fault UK government ran referendum and allowed Joe public to decide result. 

Blame Cameron, blame Boris, blame all politicians who could have voted for lots of different ways to go, but for their own political reasons( and that is Conservative, Labour, SNP, UDP &  Liberal) chose not to, but most of all, blame ourselves for voting for Brexit. 

[CJGJ]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

There were stipulations, and IIRC Britain didn't fancy them - remember the "divorce bill"?

 

But I think you're missing the point of what's going on - we've left the EU.

What's happening now is creating a new agreement re the details of our future relationship, something that couldn't possibly be decided decades in advance.

 

As things stand, legally, once the transition ends we become a third party, as both sides knew and agreed to.

I don't think the EU agreed to it

 

This was one party filing for divorce which as a result means both are impacted

 

I'm still waiting to see that 100% happy divorce though

[Unknown user]

.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Smithee

[Unknown user]

54 minutes ago, OBE said:

Should've just shut up Smithee, thanks for explaining what I've missed.

Nah, it's meant to be conversation not confrontation. Nowt wrong with what you said, I get plenty wrong

[Unknown user]

54 minutes ago, OBE said:

Should've just shut up Smithee, thanks for explaining what I've missed.

Nah, it's meant to be conversation not confrontation. Nowt wrong with what you said, I get plenty wrong