Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Weston Super Saint]

Where’s my passport and the nearest lifeboat...

 

Is it this one?

 

[SFC Forever]

You said the British people, not Parliament. There was always a majority amongst the people for some kind of middle of the road deal. It was only a dysfunctional Parliament where the extremes held sway and the moderates were in a minority.

 

If the moderate majority had voted for a moderate government we would not be looking at a Boris led one.

[Wes Tender]

No rational well person would write that. IÂ’m coming round to HockeyÂ’s view that you are a troll. That or early stage dementia

 

Come on, tell me which part of the post is irrational in your eyes? The first couple of sentences are a statement of fact. The second couple of sentences are a stated opinion by this group of MPs. They claim that they represent significant opposition to Boris' refusal to consider an extension. But as the Conservatives have a substantial majority of 80 in the House, then their group can reasonably only be described as nothing more than a significant minority, largely as it comprises the devolved governments.

 

So presumably your comments are directed at the third and fourth parts. Do let me know your thoughts on what the point of this little exercise is? Do you think that Barnier will dismiss this group as an irrelevance, or do you think that he will believe that they are part of a groundswell of support for an extension, causing him to delay any decisions on a trade deal? You must recognise that if he takes the sensible first view of them, then what exactly was the point of the exercise? If he takes the second view, then this group's letter will have been a hindrance to getting a deal.

 

Or is it that you're just another of this bunch of the most ardent remoaners who think that because of the Chinese virus, we would be barking mad not to apply for an extension? There have been many articles written recently laying out a very solid case for not applying for an extension at the moment because of the virus. I realise that you will believe that all of the authors of those pieces must be thick idiots, but instead of hurling insults, why not put forward a cogent counter argument? Otherwise, I will just conclude that your reply was curt and insulting because you were stung by my reminding you in the previous post of your fallibility when it comes to predicting Brexit outcomes.

[Wes Tender]

If the moderate majority had voted for a moderate government we would not be looking at a Boris led one.

 

Of the choices available to the electorate, which of the alternatives was the most moderate in your opinion?

[Wes Tender]

Is it this one?

 

 

Good one

[Fan The Flames]

Come on, tell me which part of the post is irrational in your eyes? The first couple of sentences are a statement of fact. The second couple of sentences are a stated opinion by this group of MPs. They claim that they represent significant opposition to Boris' refusal to consider an extension. But as the Conservatives have a substantial majority of 80 in the House, then their group can reasonably only be described as nothing more than a significant minority, largely as it comprises the devolved governments.

 

So presumably your comments are directed at the third and fourth parts. Do let me know your thoughts on what the point of this little exercise is? Do you think that Barnier will dismiss this group as an irrelevance, or do you think that he will believe that they are part of a groundswell of support for an extension, causing him to delay any decisions on a trade deal? You must recognise that if he takes the sensible first view of them, then what exactly was the point of the exercise? If he takes the second view, then this group's letter will have been a hindrance to getting a deal.

 

Or is it that you're just another of this bunch of the most ardent remoaners who think that because of the Chinese virus, we would be barking mad not to apply for an extension? There have been many articles written recently laying out a very solid case for not applying for an extension at the moment because of the virus. I realise that you will believe that all of the authors of those pieces must be thick idiots, but instead of hurling insults, why not put forward a cogent counter argument? Otherwise, I will just conclude that your reply was curt and insulting because you were stung by my reminding you in the previous post of your fallibility when it comes to predicting Brexit outcomes.

 

Maybe it's the way you write rather than what you say that makes you appear so deranged. Your writing is so seething, not always expressed in the words, but there is a real apparent undercurrent of aggression and loathing. It appears that the Somerset sea air doesn't have a positive impact on your well being.

[Weston Super Saint]

Maybe it's the way you write rather than what you say that makes you appear so deranged. Your writing is so seething, not always expressed in the words, but there is a real apparent undercurrent of aggression and loathing. It appears that the Somerset sea air doesn't have a positive impact on your well being.

 

Nope, wrong one! Unless Wes travelled from 'West End' to 'Weston Super Mare' over the weekend.... The clues are all there in the names....

[saint1977]

Maybe it's the way you write rather than what you say that makes you appear so deranged. Your writing is so seething, not always expressed in the words, but there is a real apparent undercurrent of aggression and loathing. It appears that the Somerset sea air doesn't have a positive impact on your well being.

 

I think it's WSS that lives in Somerset. Possibly that's me wanting Wes at more a distance than the next county along as I think he's still in Hampshire. I may be wrong.

 

Wes is certainly an angry ant. Not sure why - we've left the EU and Tories have an 80 seat majority in after 10 years in power, which hasn't been done in generations. I'll never agree with him and his friends on here in a million years about No Deal but Boris is in charge of the car and if it is a cliff edge then the 52% won't have anywhere to hide. If it's a success, then they can say 'told you so' to remainers like me and I still win if the country recovers as a citizen.

 

His tone is extreme, but the discourse in this country has become a lot more shrill and divided/angry over the last 10 years, more like America has been since Obama got elected. That seems to have been a lightning rod for a lot of extremists.

 

You see some of the usual Tory-Labour bickering on here, but the referendum has really poisoned the well. My childhood family home was full of politicians and a range of people from all political backgrounds discussing the issues of the day around the dinner table. People disagreed but there was respect and people listened to the views of others, even during the height of the Thatcher years and no doubt long after I'd left home, on the Iraq War. I enjoyed it and it made me want to research and understand the different ideas and perspectives, however much I agreed/disagreed, and it helped learn the art of knowing when to compromise. I think people look for differences first, rather than what they have in common, and there's very little interest in different views in making policies. Even the literature market is saturated with either nationalist/populist texts or Owen Jones/Paul Mason style Marxist whines so it's not just the electorate.

 

What will help Boris is that other than Brexit, I don't get the impression he is overly ideological, I think it's why he can win votes that most of the modern Tory party could never win. A lot of his cabinet, apart from Sunak (his best move was him as CoE) is very ideological though.

[Wes Tender]

Maybe it's the way you write rather than what you say that makes you appear so deranged. Your writing is so seething, not always expressed in the words, but there is a real apparent undercurrent of aggression and loathing. It appears that the Somerset sea air doesn't have a positive impact on your well being.

 

You've assumed a proxy to answer on Timmy's behalf, I see. You don't see any irony in you doing that, combined with the remarks you made, when your poster name is "Fan the Flames"? The air has been blowing here from the Arctic this past week. Perhaps that's why my posts appear a bit frosty.

[Fan The Flames]

You've assumed a proxy to answer on Timmy's behalf, I see. You don't see any irony in you doing that, combined with the remarks you made, when your poster name is "Fan the Flames"? The air has been blowing here from the Arctic this past week. Perhaps that's why my posts appear a bit frosty.

 

You've obviously learnt about irony from Alanis Morissette, there is nothing ironic about someone commenting on your unnecessary angry tone. And you see conspiracies where there are none, my pointless forum name comes from my ****ed mate putting his arm around me one night saying 'Saints are on fire' and then shouting in my ear 'fan the flames'.

 

I'm still convinced you and Weston are the same person, now that's irony.

[badgerx16]

I'm still convinced you and Weston are the same person, now that's irony.

Don't think so, I haven't seen anything that suggests Wes goes cycling.

[Guided Missile]

Is it this one?

Unfortunately for Gavyn, it's this one:

[Wes Tender]

Don't think so, I haven't seen anything that suggests Wes goes cycling.

 

I'm doing a lot of cycling during the lockdown.

[badgerx16]

I'm doing a lot of cycling during the lockdown.

So now you're adding evidence to his multi-login theory. Just stay clear of the 'Weekend Cycling' thread, and don't go near STRAVA.

[Wes Tender]

So now you're adding evidence to his multi-login theory. Just stay clear of the 'Weekend Cycling' thread, and don't go near STRAVA.

 

https://www.finder.com/uk/cycling-statistics

 

Yes, you're really starting to narrow it down, what with over 40% of the UK population owning bicycles, and the increased number going out for a bike ride as a form of exercise during the lockdown.

[Wes Tender]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-approach-to-the-future-relationship-with-the-eu

 

Chapter and verse of our negotiating proposals for the future trading relationship with the EU. No longer can the EU claim that they don't understand what we want; it is all perfectly clear and concise.

[shurlock]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-approach-to-the-future-relationship-with-the-eu

 

Chapter and verse of our negotiating proposals for the future trading relationship with the EU. No longer can the EU claim that they don't understand what we want; it is all perfectly clear and concise.

 

 

I wonder how consistent it is with the political declaration

[Guided Missile]

Liz Truss playing a blinder and Patrick Minford spot on with his analysis in this article

The government has now published the tariffs it will levy on countries with which it has no free trade agreement (FTA). From the end of this year when we leave the EU, this will replace the EU tariff system which we still share within the EU customs union. Briefly, what it does is abolish tariffs on inputs and goods we do not produce, while keeping tariffs at roughly current rates on products made here. It also abolishes a huge swathe of complex ‘variants’ put in place by the EU largely to satisfy special EU producer interests.

As for the EU, with whom we are also trying to reach an FTA, either it will become more flexible and agree to Canada-plus; or there will be no EU FTA for now and tariffs will be levied both ways, as must happen under WTO rules, since these ‘MFN tariffs’ apply to any country without an FTA. WTO rules also rule out discriminatory action on standards and mandate a seamless border; so there should be no illegal border non-tariff barriers on EU-UK trade under WTO rules. Tariffs on UK-EU trade will have little effect on UK exporters who will pass them on to EU consumers who suffer from much higher EU prices due to high EU total protection. EU exporters will not be able to pass on our UK tariffs because they will have to match world prices in our market. The implication is that the Treasury here gets some useful revenue, of around £13 billion a year from EU exporters; while the EU Commission gets about £5 billion per annum from EU consumers. A net plus to the UK, and a net minus to the EU, which if the EU is economically rational- a big if- should mean they will agree to the FTA we have been proposing.

More details on our governments approach to tariffs here entitled "UK Global Tariff backs UK businesses and consumers". Quite....

[shurlock]

Liz Truss playing a blinder and Patrick Minford spot on with his analysis in this article

 

More details on our governments approach to tariffs here entitled "UK Global Tariff backs UK businesses and consumers". Quite....

 

Old paddy minford, widely considered a joke in the economics profession, still doesn't understand how WTO rules work...

[Wes Tender]

I wonder how consistent it is with the political declaration

 

The Political Declaration is not a legally binding document. It was tantamount to a wish list, a sort of route map to the negotiations. Here is the updated version, in case you wish to bring yourself up to speed.

[shurlock]

The Political Declaration is not a legally binding document. It was tantamount to a wish list, a sort of route map to the negotiations. Here is the updated version, in case you wish to bring yourself up to speed.

 

Some might say it’s bad faith to ignore or not implement the PD. Of course the EU made it abundantly clear in the PD that it wouldn’t be offering the UK the same deal as Canada without additional requirements (requirements which UK negotiators recognised and accepted at the time but are now dishonestly pretending that they’ve been foisted on the UK out of the blue).

Edited 19 May, 2020 by shurlock

[Guided Missile]

Old paddy minford, widely considered a joke in the economics profession, still doesn't understand how WTO rules work...

Old gavy davies, widely considered a joke in the economics profession, never understood how the ERM would work...

[Wes Tender]

Some might say it’s bad faith to ignore the PD.

 

You mean the same sort of bad faith that the EU showed when under Article 50 they were obliged to negotiate a trade deal simultaneously with other aspects of a deal, like the negotiations over residency of EU nationals here and UK nationals in the EU / the Slush fund settlement payment / the Irish border question? They wouldn't discuss trade until those other three things were agreed, deemed to be an act of bad faith by many legal eagles.

 

The same sort of bad faith that the EU have shown when they have FTA deals with Canada/S.Korea/Japan, and are not prepared to offer us a deal on the same basis. That sort of bad faith?

 

It is accepted that in negotiations such as these, that a new government should not be bound by the decisions of a previous one. The political landscape has altered somewhat since October when Johnson led a minority government. Much as you would have preferred us to have remained hamstrung and weak in these negotiations, we are now in a far stronger position, thankfully.

[Wes Tender]

Some might say it’s bad faith to ignore or not implement the PD. Of course the EU made it abundantly clear in the PD that it wouldn’t be offering the UK the same deal as Canada without additional requirements (requirements which UK negotiators recognised and accepted at the time but are now dishonestly pretending that they’ve been foisted on the UK out of the blue).

 

You've added considerably to the original post, which was what my response was to. As I said, things have moved on since October. Time that you moved on to the new reality too.

[Wes Tender]

Just as a general musing on the Brexit situation, where is the bad faith most likely to be? With the UK voting to leave, or from the EU, who have a substantial trade surplus with us put at risk, who received large annual contributions towards their budget from a major net contributor, declaring that we should be punished for wanting to leave, and that they would make an example of how fraught the process and end result would be to discourage others from following us out?

[Baird of the land]

Bad faith has repeatedly been shown by UK. Sign up to something, get in a strop that they signed up to it. Sign up to something else, then have the PM repeatedly lie during election about what they'd signed up to. In for more of the same if latest evidence of UK govt positioning is much to go on.

[Weston Super Saint]

Bad faith has repeatedly been shown by UK. Sign up to something, get in a strop that they signed up to it. Sign up to something else, then have the PM repeatedly lie during election about what they'd signed up to. In for more of the same if latest evidence of UK govt positioning is much to go on.

 

What do you mean by 'sign up to something'? No agreement has been made yet has it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Bad faith has repeatedly been shown by UK. Sign up to something, get in a strop that they signed up to it.

 

 

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

What do you mean by 'sign up to something'? No agreement has been made yet has it?

 

The clue is in Withdrawal Agreement, little Westie.

[Weston Super Saint]

The clue is in Withdrawal Agreement, little Westie.

 

Where did he say 'withdrawal agreement'? I only read that we had signed up to 'something'.

 

More than happy for you to point me in the direction of this clue....

[shurlock]

Where did he say 'withdrawal agreement'? I only read that we had signed up to 'something'.

 

More than happy for you to point me in the direction of this clue....

 

Baird mentioned sign up to something; you understood it to mean that no agreement has been made.

 

Is the Withdrawal agreement an agreement? Has the UK signed up to/made it? There's your answer little Westie.

 

Again if you'd been following the news, you'd also know that Johnson repeatedly stretched the truth during the election campaign regarding the need for checks in the Irish sea as required under the WA, again as alluded to by Baird.

Edited 19 May, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

Baird mentioned an agreement; you claimed no agreement had been signed. If you had been following the news, you'd know there has been an agreement, its called the Withdrawal Agreement. You'd also know that Johnson repeatedly stretched the truth during the election campaign regarding the need for checks in the Irish sea, as alluded to by Baird.

 

You're all over the place pal. Baird did not mention 'agreement' at all, this is what he posted :

 

Bad faith has repeatedly been shown by UK. Sign up to something, get in a strop that they signed up to it. Sign up to something else, then have the PM repeatedly lie during election about what they'd signed up to. In for more of the same if latest evidence of UK govt positioning is much to go on.

 

Pray tell, where is the word 'agreement' - this massive clue that I'm allegedly missing?

[Weston Super Saint]

Baird mentioned an agreement; you claimed no agreement had been signed. If you had been following the news, you'd know there has been an agreement, its called the Withdrawal Agreement.

 

Is the Withdrawal Agreement an agreement or not? Has it been signed or not?

 

You'd also know that Johnson repeatedly stretched the truth during the election campaign regarding the need for checks in the Irish sea that are required by WA, as implied by Baird.

 

Is this the same withdrawal agreement that was signed on the 24th January 2020? Before then it was defeated in the HoC on three occasions and 'paused' on the fourth occasion. Is it that one or a different one you refer to?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The only thing they can have shown bad faith towards is the PD, because the WD was watertight. I believe there was some pony around the PD being the basis of the future agreement. If the UK have shown “bad faith” and gone back on vast swaths of that, then perhaps the EU aren’t as skilled negotiators as the remoaners led us to believe. Perhaps they shouldn’t have signed up to something Boris could go back on. Perhaps they’ll learn a lesson for when the next nation leaves

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 19 May, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[Window Cleaner]

The only thing they can have shown bad faith towards is the PD, because the WD was watertight. I believe there was some pony around the PD being the basis of the future agreement. If the UK have shown “bad faith” and gone back on vast swaths of that, then perhaps the EU aren’t as skilled negotiators as the remoaners led us to believe. Perhaps they shouldn’t have signed up to something Boris could go back on.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Parliament under the May government accepted neither so we didn't really sign up to either of them. Now if that Gina Miller (or whatever she's called) hadn't meddled and obtained from the courts the right of parliament to agree or not agree, the May agreements might even be in function now.

[shurlock]

Is this the same withdrawal agreement that was signed on the 24th January 2020? Before then it was defeated in the HoC on three occasions and 'paused' on the fourth occasion. Is it that one or a different one you refer to?

 

Baird's basic meaning is clear. The WA was passed by Parliament in Jan 2020; however, critically, the UK reached an agreement with the EU on the WA in mid October 2019. We're discussing bad faith in EU-UK relations; the second date is the relevant one in this specific context. What subsequently happened in Parliament doesn't change the fact that the UK and EU initially 'made' an agreement (in your words). That it was 'signed' in Jan was largely dotting the is and crossing the ts of what was already agreed with the EU in October.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

 

Johnson campaigned on the basis of getting the WA through Parliament and mispresented its contents particularly regards the Irish border and the need for customs and regulatory checks which have subsequently plagued negotiations. Hence the understandable charge of bad faith.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/bd804d91-e498-45b5-9adf-08eab3d9b439

 

Try and debate the substance little Westie, however challenging it is for you. Did Johnson misrepresent the contents of the Withdrawal Agreement?

Edited 19 May, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

Baird's meaning is clear.

 

What subsequently happened in Parliament doesn't change the fact that the UK and EU initially signed an agreement.

 

 

Baird's meaning was not clear - you chose to interpret it for everyone how you wanted to see it.

 

The UK & EU did not 'initially sign an agreement' at all, that's something you've just made up. The agreement was signed on the 24th January 2020.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/24/sombre-eu-leaders-sign-brexit-withdrawal-agreement

 

Critically, the UK and the Government at the time were happy to sign the WA in October 2019, however, it was clear that the HoC were not going to pass it, so the process was put on hold to carry out the General Election. Not sure you can blame the Government for the alleged bad faith that they had no control over at the time!

[Weston Super Saint]

Baird's meaning was not clear - you chose to interpret it for everyone how you wanted to see it.

 

The UK & EU did not 'initially sign an agreement' at all, that's something you've just made up. The agreement was signed on the 24th January 2020.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/24/sombre-eu-leaders-sign-brexit-withdrawal-agreement

 

Critically, the UK and the Government at the time were happy to sign the WA in October 2019, however, it was clear that the HoC were not going to pass it, so the process was put on hold to carry out the General Election. Not sure you can blame the Government for the alleged bad faith that they had no control over at the time!

 

I see you've edited your original post. My response is in reply to your original, unedited version as quoted.

[shurlock]

Baird's meaning was not clear - you chose to interpret it for everyone how you wanted to see it.

 

The UK & EU did not 'initially sign an agreement' at all, that's something you've just made up. The agreement was signed on the 24th January 2020.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/24/sombre-eu-leaders-sign-brexit-withdrawal-agreement

 

Critically, the UK and the Government at the time were happy to sign the WA in October 2019, however, it was clear that the HoC were not going to pass it, so the process was put on hold to carry out the General Election. Not sure you can blame the Government for the alleged bad faith that they had no control over at the time!

 

 

Eh?

 

Johnson was trying to sell the WA to the British public which had been agreed with the EU. Good faith would have implied fronting up about the consequences of the withdrawal agreement -not shamelessly downplaying the requirements for border checks which cast the UK as unreliable partner in the eyes of the EU, raising doubts whether the UK would honour the WA, irrespective whether it was passed by Parliament or not. It certainly spooked the EU at the time and has become a much greater fear over time.

Edited 19 May, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

Eh?

 

Can one allege bad faith for misrepresenting the contents of the withdrawal agreement?

 

So let me try and understand what you are arguing....

 

October 2019, Withdrawal Agreement drawn up with the EU subject to ratification by the HoC

 

October 2019, WA stalled in HoC and put on hold

 

Nov and Dec 2019, election campaign and subsequent election

 

Jan 2020, HoC ratifies the WA

 

Jan 2020, UK and EU sign the withdrawal agreement as previously written up in October 2019 and had absolutely no changes made to it at all.

 

Where is the bad faith between the UK and EU if they both signed the agreement that they put together in the first place? Surely the bad faith is between Boris and the UK electorate?

[Weston Super Saint]

So let me try and understand what you are arguing....

 

October 2019, Withdrawal Agreement drawn up with the EU subject to ratification by the HoC

 

October 2019, WA stalled in HoC and put on hold

 

Nov and Dec 2019, election campaign and subsequent election

 

Jan 2020, HoC ratifies the WA

 

Jan 2020, UK and EU sign the withdrawal agreement as previously written up in October 2019 and had absolutely no changes made to it at all.

 

Where is the bad faith between the UK and EU if they both signed the agreement that they put together in the first place? Surely the bad faith is between Boris and the UK electorate?

 

It woud be nice if you stopped editing your posts - or if you managed to get your arguments straight before you posted them

[Weston Super Saint]

The clue is in Withdrawal Agreement, little Westie.

 

So, which 'something' is it that the UK has signed up to, then got in a strop because they signed up to it and signed up to something else?

[shurlock]

So let me try and understand what you are arguing....

 

October 2019, Withdrawal Agreement drawn up with the EU subject to ratification by the HoC

 

October 2019, WA stalled in HoC and put on hold

 

Nov and Dec 2019, election campaign and subsequent election

 

Jan 2020, HoC ratifies the WA

 

Jan 2020, UK and EU sign the withdrawal agreement as previously written up in October 2019 and had absolutely no changes made to it at all.

 

Where is the bad faith between the UK and EU if they both signed the agreement that they put together in the first place? Surely the bad faith is between Boris and the UK electorate?

 

You're incredibly naive -well we all know that already- if you don't think misrepresenting what the UK agreed with EU to the British public also had consequences for UK-EU relations. Johnson raised unrealistic expectations regarding the WA and the need for checks, limited his room for manoeuvre with the EU in a scenario where it needed to be implemented (as the UK has to do today) and set up the EU as a scapegoat and the bad guy if things failed (i.e. claims of EU acting unreasonably rather than the EU simply enforcing the terms of the WA).

Edited 19 May, 2020 by shurlock

[shurlock]

So, which 'something' is it that the UK has signed up to, then got in a strop because they signed up to it and signed up to something else?

 

I can't speak for Baird; but the basic gist of his argument and its interpretation was clear. Trust you not to see the woods for the trees.

[Weston Super Saint]

I can't speak for Baird; but the basic gist of his argument and its interpretation was clear. Trust you not to see the woods for the trees.

 

And yet you did! And in the process managed to get your own arguments all confused and pulled your own pants down. Top work!

[CB Fry]

And yet you did! And in the process managed to get your own arguments all confused and pulled your own pants down. Top work!

Jesus wept.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Parliament under the May government accepted neither so we didn't really sign up to either of them.

 

Maybe I’m missing something, but I assumed everyone realises Boris signed a withdrawal agreement. It was ratified by Parliament in January

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

And yet you did! And in the process managed to get your own arguments all confused and pulled your own pants down. Top work!

 

Keep running around in circles, telling yourself sweet nothings that convince nobody but bore everyone -all while demonstrating your complete inability to debate the substance. Unless you're willing to offer an argument (or response to) how Johnson was not acting in bad faith when he misrepresented to the British public the agreement he reached or 'made' (or whatever bloody shorthand you want to use) with the EU in October 2019 (and is being implemented today), then there's no point in indulging your little hard-on for me (I note it has been getting more and more bizarre in recent weeks). Otherwise you are free to derail these threads by yourself pal.

Edited 19 May, 2020 by shurlock

[Tamesaint]

I think Weston has decided to kill this thread by posting semantic boll ocks.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think Weston has decided to kill this thread by posting semantic boll ocks.

 

What’s killing me is remoaners going on about “bad faith”, as if Grocer Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, & Cameron were totally up front about our deals and relationships with Europe.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk