Hard Brexit

[Francis Albert]

Although trivial in itself (though not so much for the UK and for Ireland in particular) the horse racing issue could be quite a nice case study of the pros and cons of the EU rules and processes and its suffocating bureaucracy. Far from being the beneficent outcome of the free trade and the customs union, the current arrangements for transfer of race horses are in fact based on a tri-partite agreement between France, Ireland and the UK, promoted by the respecting racing authorities of these three countries, that predates the existence of the EU in its current form and pre-dates the UK and Ireland  joining the EU. This has since been incorporated into EU law and hence replacing it on the UK departure will involve a detailed negotiation involving another  25 nations for almost all of whom the transfer of race horses doesn't affect them in any material way. The new arrangements will have to bow to the principles of free trade and the customs union, although I am sure the majority actually affected would agree with no difficulty to what was agreed about 50 years ago before the EU got involved and which in essence applies today.

 

Anyway  let's enyoy the Champion Hurdle while we can.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Francis Albert

[scott herbertson]

Unilever is closing it’s UK based HQ and moving it’s HQ to Rotterdam . While Brexit may not be the reason still not good for the Govt’s message.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43417087

[jake]

Oh that wonderful democratic organisation that is the EU.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1GO2K1

[jake]

Of course the political allegiance to Angela Merkel of this new appointment is of no consequence.

Head of 33 thousand civil servants.

 

European Soviet Union springs to mind.

[Adam Murray]

1 hour ago, jake said:

Oh that wonderful democratic organisation that is the EU.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1GO2K1

 

Yet some people want more and more of these, un-elected, un-democratic, drains on society leeches, to grandstand over us.

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Adam Murray said:

 

Yet some people want more and more of these, un-elected, un-democratic, drains on society leeches, to grandstand over us.

 

But what has it got to do with Brexit?

 

A politico of power and influence is trying to do something he shouldn't do.  It might be technically within the rules, but it's not kosher behaviour as far as I can see.  Some other politicos are complaining about what he's doing and trying to stop him, so he might be stopped or he might not be stopped.  Hopefully he will.  But so what if he isn't?  Lots of politicos try to do stuff they shouldn't do, in the UK as well as in Europe.  The rules should be better at preventing politicos from doing this kind of stuff, but they aren't always ideal, and no country has a monopoly on good public administration practice.

 

Nigel Farage was apparently quoted as saying that it's a perfect example of why the UK should leave the EU.  But the UK is leaving the EU.  Hasn't he noticed?

[Francis Albert]

39 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

But what has it got to do with Brexit?

 

A politico of power and influence is trying to do something he shouldn't do.  It might be technically within the rules, but it's not kosher behaviour as far as I can see.  Some other politicos are complaining about what he's doing and trying to stop him, so he might be stopped or he might not be stopped.  Hopefully he will.  But so what if he isn't?  Lots of politicos try to do stuff they shouldn't do, in the UK as well as in Europe.  The rules should be better at preventing politicos from doing this kind of stuff, but they aren't always ideal, and no country has a monopoly on good public administration practice.

 

Nigel Farage was apparently quoted as saying that it's a perfect example of why the UK should leave the EU.  But the UK is leaving the EU.  Hasn't he noticed?

Always glad to help.since you ask. As we haven't left the EU and there remains strong opposition to us doing so Farage's comment is in his terms a pretty unexceptional one. Making cheap shots at Farage seems a bit unnecessary when there are so many better ones to make. Such as this isn't in the top 100 reasons why the UK should leave the EU.

 

Having said that  there are few "politicos" who are unelected who have the absurd Juncker's power and influence. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Adam Murray]

42 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

But what has it got to do with Brexit?

 

A politico of power and influence is trying to do something he shouldn't do.  It might be technically within the rules, but it's not kosher behaviour as far as I can see.  Some other politicos are complaining about what he's doing and trying to stop him, so he might be stopped or he might not be stopped.  Hopefully he will.  But so what if he isn't?  Lots of politicos try to do stuff they shouldn't do, in the UK as well as in Europe.  The rules should be better at preventing politicos from doing this kind of stuff, but they aren't always ideal, and no country has a monopoly on good public administration practice.

 

Nigel Farage was apparently quoted as saying that it's a perfect example of why the UK should leave the EU.  But the UK is leaving the EU.  Hasn't he noticed?

 

In my opinion, the less 'politicos' we have making decisions for us, the better.

[Ulysses]

59 minutes ago, Adam Murray said:

 

In my opinion, the less 'politicos' we have making decisions for us, the better.

 

I understand your point, but with Brexit all you're doing is swapping the decision making from one group to another. 

 

In any case, the point behind my question still stands.  Juncker's actions in this case might be a source of concern to those of us within the EU, but they're of no concern to the UK.  Why?  Because if he succeeds the actions don't have any effect until after the UK leaves, and they have no relevance at all to Brexit because the only matter of debate now in relation to Brexit is the manner of the UK's exit.

[jake]

39 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I understand your point, but with Brexit all you're doing is swapping the decision making from one group to another. 

 

In any case, the point behind my question still stands.  Juncker's actions in this case might be a source of concern to those of us within the EU, but they're of no concern to the UK.  Why?  Because if he succeeds the actions don't have any effect until after the UK leaves, and they have no relevance at all to Brexit because the only matter of debate now in relation to Brexit is the manner of the UK's exit.

Of course you are correct.As we are leaving the EU.

I posted the initial reference to Juncker.

Why ?

Come on not perhaps you but constantly on here there are posts warning of the doom from brexit.

 

Just a wee bit point scoring from me.

I happen to agree with Adam there is far too much big government.

But that's another argument.

 

And you are not shy when I think about it from point scoring .

 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, jake said:

Of course you are correct.As we are leaving the EU.

I posted the initial reference to Juncker.

Why ?

Come on not perhaps you but constantly on here there are posts warning of the doom from brexit.

 

Just a wee bit point scoring from me.

I happen to agree with Adam there is far too much big government.

But that's another argument.

 

And you are not shy when I think about it from point scoring .

 

 

Thanks for accepting that the point is irrelevant to the main debate.   

 

If there is doom from Brexit (or, as I put it, some loss of jobs and economic output), it has nothing to do with an appointment in the European Commission.

 

If the appointment is stopped or blocked, as it might well be, I doubt you'll be posting to urge the UK to change its mind about Brexit - which pretty much proves my point.

[jake]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Thanks for accepting that the point is irrelevant to the main debate.   

 

If there is doom from Brexit (or, as I put it, some loss of jobs and economic output), it has nothing to do with an appointment in the European Commission.

 

If the appointment is stopped or blocked, as it might well be, I doubt you'll be posting to urge the UK to change its mind about Brexit - which pretty much proves my point.

No I won't be posting that.

But it is relevant to point out the workings of the EU .

It's also worth noting the growing resentment among Europe's population and national politics towards the EU.

Including Germany .

Think it is pertinent in respect of why I think the UK has made the right decision.

All the signs however small that the EU is failing.

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, jake said:

No I won't be posting that.

But it is relevant to point out the workings of the EU .

It's also worth noting the growing resentment among Europe's population and national politics towards the EU.

Including Germany .

Think it is pertinent in respect of why I think the UK has made the right decision.

All the signs however small that the EU is failing.

 

So, in other words, if you think things the EU do are wrong then things the EU do are wrong.

 

And you think it would be a good idea for the UK to leave.

 

I'll alert the media at once. 

 

Now, back on topic we see from this morning's news that once again your negotiators have given the prospect of a hard Brexit a body swerve.

 

Quelle surprise.

[Cade]

UK caves in to all EU demands on Brexit.

 

I am shocked.

SHOCKED!

 

 

[Francis Albert]

29 minutes ago, Cade said:

UK caves in to all EU demands on Brexit.

 

I am shocked.

SHOCKED!

 

 

What have we caved in on?

Does the eu agreement that we can not just negotiate but sign trade deals during the transition period represent a cave in by the eu?

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

UK caves in to all EU demands on Brexit.

 

I am shocked.

SHOCKED!

 

 

 

If there's caving in going on, I'd say it's a bit more mutual than that, in fairness.

[jake]

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

So, in other words, if you think things the EU do are wrong then things the EU do are wrong.

 

And you think it would be a good idea for the UK to leave.

 

I'll alert the media at once. 

 

Now, back on topic we see from this morning's news that once again your negotiators have given the prospect of a hard Brexit a body swerve.

 

Quelle surprise.

I don't really regard them as mine.

 

What I do regard as mine was my vote.

 

And I hope it counts

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

If there's caving in going on, I'd say it's a bit more mutual than that, in fairness.

 

Agreed both sides have given ground here, as most negotiations end up as.

 

Cade is so pro EU he can't see that the EU has conceded ground as well as the UK has.

 

[Ulysses]

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Cade is so pro EU he can't see that the EU has conceded ground as well as the UK has.

 

 

 

And I'm so pro-EU that I can't see it either.

 

 

 

 

 

No, wait, actually that's not the case. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

And I'm so pro-EU that I can't see it either.

 

 

 

 

 

No, wait, actually that's not the case. 

 

 

[JamboX2]

On 3/18/2018 at 20:42, jake said:

Of course you are correct.As we are leaving the EU.

I posted the initial reference to Juncker.

Why ?

Come on not perhaps you but constantly on here there are posts warning of the doom from brexit.

 

Just a wee bit point scoring from me.

I happen to agree with Adam there is far too much big government.

But that's another argument.

 

And you are not shy when I think about it from point scoring .

 

 

And what remnants of the state would you like to erode once we leave the EU:

 

1. Welfare

2. NHS

3. Social care

4. Education

5. Defence

6. Policing

7. Consumer protection

8. Energy market regulations 

9. Monopolies commission 

10. Health and Safety Executive 

 

C'mon Jake. Your politics (which fair enough are your views) are going to hurt the worst off in this country before it hurts the far cats and politicians you claim to want to see hurt by Brexit or Independence.

[Francis Albert]

The Guardian immediately leapt on news of the transition deal by headlining a claim by an anti-Brexit lobbying group "Open Britain"  that government ministers had broken seven promises in making the agreement. The suggestion that an open negotiating position (on either side) is a "promise" betrays a total misunderstanding about what negotiation means. There will be further compromises on both sides. At the end of the day many Leavers will be condemning a soft Brexit that betrays the referendum vote. Equally many Remainers will be saying that the hard Brexit outcome is disastrous.

 

In the meantime the pound, widely predicted to be heading for parity with the dollar after the referendum vote, is back at $1.40 to the pound, pretty much where it was before the vote.

 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The Guardian immediately leapt on news of the transition deal by headlining a claim by an anti-Brexit lobbying group "Open Britain"  that government ministers had broken seven promises in making the agreement. The suggestion that an open negotiating position (on either side) is a "promise" betrays a total misunderstanding about what negotiation means. There will be further compromises on both sides. At the end of the day many Leavers will be condemning a soft Brexit that betrays the referendum vote. Equally many Remainers will be saying that the hard Brexit outcome is disastrous.

 

In the meantime the pound, widely predicted to be heading for parity with the dollar after the referendum vote, is back at $1.40 to the pound, pretty much where it was before the vote.

 

£ heading for parity with the Euro though which hits the consumer hard 

[JamboX2]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The Guardian immediately leapt on news of the transition deal by headlining a claim by an anti-Brexit lobbying group "Open Britain"  that government ministers had broken seven promises in making the agreement. The suggestion that an open negotiating position (on either side) is a "promise" betrays a total misunderstanding about what negotiation means. There will be further compromises on both sides. At the end of the day many Leavers will be condemning a soft Brexit that betrays the referendum vote. Equally many Remainers will be saying that the hard Brexit outcome is disastrous.

 

In the meantime the pound, widely predicted to be heading for parity with the dollar after the referendum vote, is back at $1.40 to the pound, pretty much where it was before the vote.

 

 

I don't actually think the EU will go much further. Based on yesterday's news the effect of the deal to date is:

 

We leave the EU in May 2019.

But we remain in the EU with NO political representation until 2021.

So no say on the running of the EU for 2 years.

 

We are allowed to discuss new trade deals. But not enact any. But given we've no idea what our final relationship will be it's hard to square our new deals with our relationship with Europe.

 

We are in the CFP till 2021 with no say on it's running for a year.

 

The fall back on Northern Ireland means the break up of the UK's internal market and borders.

 

We have 2 years to get a comprehensive deal or we crash out...

 

...what did we get here that's good? No ECJ in 2021?

 

Seems like the EU is holding the UK government over a barrel here.

 

The first one is an horrendous miscalculation. Massive. Imagine the Scottish Parliament voted to stay in the UK but abolish MPs. That's what that is.

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

The difference is that the EU always came across as relatively flexible, focusing on a few key points with little demands, it's the UK that has been throwing out red-lines here and unconstructive language there.

 

It's the UK that has had to surrender ground.  They have made concessions on the main contentious issues - NI, Fishing, Duration, Divorce Bill, and Citizens rights.

 

There is only ever to be one winner in these negotiations.

 

I agree with your point.

 

But given the EU is bound to act within it's founding treaties and it's governing body cannot act with the permission or say so of its members... they've been incredibly able at arriving at a broadly acceptable position for 27 nations and retain room for manouvere in comparison to a Tory government with a nominal majority of 16 with no legal limitations on how it negotiates.

 

Shows up how poor May's government has dealt with this.

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

The difference is that the EU always came across as relatively flexible, focusing on a few key points with little demands, it's the UK that has been throwing out red-lines here and unconstructive language there.

 

It's the UK that has had to surrender ground.  They have made concessions on the main contentious issues - NI, Fishing, Duration, Divorce Bill, and Citizens rights.

 

There is only ever to be one winner in these negotiations.

Isn't there a slight contradiction in saying EU comes actross as relatively flexible but it is the UK that is surrendering ground? In fact both sides have made concessions.

 

And both sides starting positions were extreme ... the UK's red lines matched by the EU mantra of "no cherry picking" and "no having cake and eating it".

[JamboX2]

11 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Indeed.  May has been responsible for overseeing nothing sort of a disaster thus far, Rees-Mogg has sat back and positioned himself well over the last 12 months.  Not be long now ...

 

I think he'd be the death of the Tories. IDS mk 2. 

 

He'd split his party straight down the middle and force the modern Tories to do some serious soul searching.

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

The rhetoric expressed by the UK was demands and ultimatums.  The EU simply expressed what they needed, and then waited for the UK to approach the negotiating table.

 

The main issues of contention were: NI, Fishing, Duration, Divorce Bill, and Citizens rights.  Both sides have made concessions, but its the UK that have diverted further from their initial starting point on these factors.

 

Also, it's the UK leaving the EU.  Mays government have known all along that they have a poor hand in negotiating, all the bravado over the last 12 months has been posturing to appease Brexiteers.

Early days still. When German politicians face having to defend the loss of car workers jobs for the dubious benefit of having more foreign bankers working in Frankfurt the risks of a cliff edge will influence both sides.

 

Despite the EU's "expression of what they needed" there will be plenty of cherries picked and cake eaten by the end of the process.

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Early days still. When German politicians face having to defend the loss of car workers jobs for the dubious benefit of having more foreign bankers working in Frankfurt the risks of a cliff edge will influence both sides.

 

Despite the EU's "expression of what they needed" there will be plenty of cherries picked and cake eaten by the end of the process.

Still lots of horse trading to come from both sides.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I don't actually think the EU will go much further. Based on yesterday's news the effect of the deal to date is:

 

We leave the EU in May 2019.

But we remain in the EU with NO political representation until 2021.

So no say on the running of the EU for 2 years.

 

We are allowed to discuss new trade deals. But not enact any. But given we've no idea what our final relationship will be it's hard to square our new deals with our relationship with Europe.

 

We are in the CFP till 2021 with no say on it's running for a year.

 

The fall back on Northern Ireland means the break up of the UK's internal market and borders.

 

We have 2 years to get a comprehensive deal or we crash out...

 

...what did we get here that's good? No ECJ in 2021?

 

Seems like the EU is holding the UK government over a barrel here.

 

The first one is an horrendous miscalculation. Massive. Imagine the Scottish Parliament voted to stay in the UK but abolish MPs. That's what that is.

We have (understandably) been pretty much excluded from EU decision making since the Brexit vote -- we are no longer invited to summits and other major meetings.  So I don't see the 18 month period of transition with no political representation as a biggie.

Adapting your strained Scottish analogy to more relevant one,  if the price of Scotland escaping from Tory English domination was 18 months of not having for a short transition period  the minimal influence it has in Westminster I don't think it would be a make or break issue for the triumphant SNP.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

23 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

We have (understandably) been pretty much excluded from EU decision making since the Brexit vote -- we are no longer invited to summits and other major meetings.  So I don't see the 18 month period of transition with no political representation as a biggie.

 

No we are involved to date. We are excluded from the meetings dealing with Brexit. So our representatives and ministers attend all meetings excluding ones on the EU's negotiating position with Brexit. So this is a biggie to be bound to the EU for 2 years with no political representation.

 

23 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Adapting your strained Scottish analogy to more relevant one,  if the price of Scotland escaping from Tory English domination was 18 months of not having for a short transition period  the minimal influence it has in Westminster I don't think it would be a make or break issue for the triumphant SNP.

 

I think it would actually. The SNP position was to be in the UK until March 2016 - with MPs and all the joint ministerial bodies of the UK in play. After that date (under the White Paper) then all joint issues still to be resolved would be via inter-governmental discussions.

 

The UK does not - under this - have any say! Zero for two years.

 

Shambolic.

[Francis Albert]

33 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

No we are involved to date. We are excluded from the meetings dealing with Brexit. So our representatives and ministers attend all meetings excluding ones on the EU's negotiating position with Brexit. So this is a biggie to be bound to the EU for 2 years with no political representation.

 

 

I think it would actually. The SNP position was to be in the UK until March 2016 - with MPs and all the joint ministerial bodies of the UK in play. After that date (under the White Paper) then all joint issues still to be resolved would be via inter-governmental discussions.

 

The UK does not - under this - have any say! Zero for two years.

 

Shambolic.

Did the UK government sign on to those transitional arrangements in the White Paper? It would certainly simplify things if the UK could just decide for itself the transitional timetable and terms without the agreement of the EU.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Did the UK government sign on to those transitional arrangements in the White Paper? It would certainly simplify things if the UK could just decide for itself the transitional timetable and terms without the agreement of the EU.

 

No. But you've moved your goal posts a bit. The SNP had at least a full prospectus on their aim. It had detailed timings and their preferred staging posts and methods of reaching agreement.

 

The UK govt has dived into Article 50 with 0 consideration of the process, timing or what they want. So much so that they've no agreement on NI as yet.

 

It's shoddy and half baked.

[jb102]

Scottish fishery industry hung out to dry during negotiations for the home counties.

Not to control our own waters until 2060.

 

Can't wait to hear how hard, dry and deep agriculture will get ****ed.

 

Trust in Westminster to fight for everything north of Reading waning fast.

[Notts1874]

Below is a letter from Neil Hamilton to the BBC complaining about bias. ???

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Below is a letter from Neil Hamilton to the BBC complaining about bias. ???

 

What a roaster that chap is!

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Agendas at play everywhere here.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

No. But you've moved your goal posts a bit. The SNP had at least a full prospectus on their aim. It had detailed timings and their preferred staging posts and methods of reaching agreement.

 

The UK govt has dived into Article 50 with 0 consideration of the process, timing or what they want. So much so that they've no agreement on NI as yet.

 

It's shoddy and half baked.

Agreed the UK's preparedness for the negotiation left and leaves a lot to be desired. But then those involved had not been preparing for separation from the EU for decades.

The SNP may have had a better plan ... but in negotiation as well as war plans usually go pretty well until an encounter with the opposition or enemy.

[scott herbertson]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed the UK's preparedness for the negotiation left and leaves a lot to be desired. But then those involved had not been preparing for separation from the EU for decades.

The SNP may have had a better plan ... but in negotiation as well as war plans usually go pretty well until an encounter with the opposition or enemy.

 

 

Thats true, but these encounters usually go far worse if you don’t have a plan at all. Eg our feeble attempts to negotiate with Hitler in 1937-9 without have a plan beyond ‘please stop!’ Or the little known but catastrophic Roman defeat in Teutoburg  Forest in 9CE

Edited March 20, 2018 by scott herbertson

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 hours ago, jb102 said:

Scottish fishery industry hung out to dry during negotiations for the home counties.

Not to control our own waters until 2060.

 

Can't wait to hear how hard, dry and deep agriculture will get ****ed.

 

Trust in Westminster to fight for everything north of Reading waning fast.

 

Assuming that's a typo, as it's 2020.

[JamboX2]

4 hours ago, jb102 said:

Scottish fishery industry hung out to dry during negotiations for the home counties.

Not to control our own waters until 2060.

 

Can't wait to hear how hard, dry and deep agriculture will get ****ed.

 

Trust in Westminster to fight for everything north of Reading waning fast.

 

2060?

[Francis Albert]

33 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Thats true, but these encounters usually go far worse if you don’t have a plan at all. Eg our feeble attempts to negotiate with Hitler in 1937-9 without have a plan beyond ‘please stop!’ Or the little known but catastrophic Roman defeat in Teutoburg  Forest in 9CE

I think the appeasers had a plan in 1937-39 ... a plan to appease. It was the wrong plan but it was a plan ... one that in its own terms might have succeeded with Halifax and Chamberlain and most Conservatives (probably still with the support of a majority of the country at the time) but for Churchill, Attlee and the Labour partyin 1940.

 

I will defer to your knowledge of Teutoburg in 9AD (as I will obstinately continue to call it!).

[Francis Albert]

21 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

2060?

Still probably sooner than if the Remainers (and SNP) had won.

[JamboX2]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Still probably sooner than if the Remainers (and SNP) had won.

 

See I don't think the over fishing of the fish in British waters was good. CFP has flaws but it forces sustainable quotas in European waters.

 

Again. Why aren't our fishermen taking advantage of fishing in Spanish or French waters? Will our governments allow us to go for unregulated fishing?

 

What'll change?

 

Again I see more costs.  You'll need a bigger Navy to police the EEZ. 

[JamboX2]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I think the appeasers had a plan in 1937-39 ... a plan to appease. It was the wrong plan but it was a plan ... one that in its own terms might have succeeded with Halifax and Chamberlain and most Conservatives (probably still with the support of a majority of the country at the time) but for Churchill, Attlee and the Labour partyin 1940.

 

I will defer to your knowledge of Teutoburg in 9AD (as I will obstinately continue to call it!).

 

MacMillan always said appeasement bought the Allies much needed time. History has shown Hitler was bluffing on Germany's strength.

[jb102]

58 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Assuming that's a typo, as it's 2020.

Typo. My apologies. 

[scott herbertson]

49 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I think the appeasers had a plan in 1937-39 ... a plan to appease. It was the wrong plan but it was a plan ... one that in its own terms might have succeeded with Halifax and Chamberlain and most Conservatives (probably still with the support of a majority of the country at the time) but for Churchill, Attlee and the Labour partyin 1940.

 

I will defer to your knowledge of Teutoburg in 9AD (as I will obstinately continue to call it!).

 

 

To secure boundaries through appeasement was the objective - they didn’t have a viable plan as to how to achieve it in the face of Hitler just lying. Much the same problem through lack of a plan thatthe West is having with Putin, as witness the pathetically ineffective ‘punishment’ we have doled out for Salisbury.

 

Teutoburg resulted from the opposition of two objectives (the Romans to crush the German rebellion, the Germans to gain their freedom) with only one side having a strategy how to achieve it (the Romans tactic being simply to march towards where they thought the Germans were)

[Toxteth O'Grady]

6 hours ago, jb102 said:

Scottish fishery industry hung out to dry during negotiations for the home counties.

Not to control our own waters until 2020.

 

Can't wait to hear how hard, dry and deep agriculture will get ****ed.

 

Trust in Westminster to fight for everything north of Reading waning fast.

The Scottish Fishing Industry voted for Brexit and Vote Conservative - They have shot themselves in the foot.

 

They have voted to leave their biggest market and now they wont have any control over fishing rules for UK waters.

They have a history of self harm though - overfishing the stocks their livliehoods depended on and selling licences to the Spanish

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Toxteth O'Grady

[Francis Albert]

The russians may have tried to kill a russian traitor in salisbury (i am not wholly convinced) but if they did it is hardly equivalent to the annexation of the Sudetenland.

[Space Mackerel]

18 minutes ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

The Scottish Fishing Industry voted for Brexit and Vote Conservative - They have shot themselves in the foot.

 

They have voted to leave their biggest market and now they wont have any control over fishing rules for UK waters.

They have a history of self harm though - overfishing the stocks their livliehoods depended on and selling licences to the Spanish

 

 

 

Not all Scottish fisherman as you are led to believe. 

 

Here

 

 

And here: