Just after the Clacton by-election, I posed a very bland question in a tweet : "What does UKIP's breakthrough mean for Scotland?". I was slightly surprised to receive a random response from Louise Mensch of all people, inviting me to rearrange the words "all" and "sod". Given that Louise has 86,000 followers on Twitter to keep her occupied, I couldn't help but wonder if I'd hit a very raw nerve.
I have a new article at the International Business Times which explores further what effect the UKIP advance might have in this part of the world - you can read it HERE.
A good read James. Positivity goes a long way in the wake of a major disappointment.
ReplyDeleteThe enemy of your enemy is your friend (ok not friend, but unwitting ally).
ReplyDeleteUKIP are a gift for those who support independence.
They reflect in England what is happening in Scotland; a rebellion against the British state.
The more UKIP do well, the more the SNP will. Part of that will simply be 'Well if the English no longer rate the UK parties and are rebelling, then...'.
UKIP are also of course demonstrating nicely to the Scottish electorate that a vote for the SNP is a vote for the SNP under FPTP. I mean if UKIP can come from nowhere to take seats...
Rochester and Strood will be another big event and focus groups will tell Ed he needs to support leaving the EU and introduce a policy for gassing immigrants if he's to win in 2015. Labour vote will go down in response and the constitutional mess No voters wanted (well they must have wanted that surely? I mean it was obvious) gets worse...
There are so many unknown variables that it’s almost impossible to make sensible predictions about Brexit. Take just one question, not often mentioned. If the UK does leave the EU, what happens to Ireland? There would be strong arguments for Ireland to stay in. It benefited massively from EU structural funds in the past, and may do again. In the event of a UK exit, the Irish economy could be transformed by firms relocating there to remain within the EU. But in that case what would happen to the Common Travel Area? Would the UK feel obliged to seal the border with Northern Ireland? And how would that in turn impact on the Belfast Agreement?
ReplyDeleteSo much uncertainty dennis. Lol
ReplyDeleteAye chalks. A No vote was always going to create massive uncertainty and instability; far more so than a Yes vote.
ReplyDelete"I was slightly surprised to receive a random response from Louise Mensch of all people, inviting me to rearrange the words "all" and "sod"
ReplyDeleteYou should have invited her to rearrange the words "mouthpiece" and "Murdoch". Or indeed "Coulson" and "Cameron". ;-)
LOL
BTW Been busy lately but interesting previous post James. I'll be discussing the matter with a big meeting of fellow SNP members soon and I'll see how things stand with longstanding and new members.
After seeing Eck's reception on question time in Liverpool tonight, I'm thinking that standing SNP candidates in the North of England wouldn't be a bad idea...
ReplyDeleteFunny this.
ReplyDeleteI had a random exchange with Louise Mensch too. She said if we joined the EU Spain would control Scottish monetary policy because we'd need their OK to join.
She also said UK Navy should fire on any Spanish vessels that entered Gib waters.
She's a nutball.
From your article:
ReplyDelete"We were told that an independent Scotland within the EU would somehow be an economic basketcase. But who can seriously doubt that an "independent" UK outside both the EU and the EEA (as Farage proposes) would suffer economic ruination?"
If you accept, as you obviously do, that an independent Scotland would not have been a basket case then why do you think that the UK outside the EU would be one?
When we failed to join the Euro we were told by the pro-EU brigade (the same people who advocated we joined the disastrous ERM a few years earlier) that there we would suffer massive economic problems, that the car industry would collapse, etc, etc. All lies; as we see today, it is the Eurozone that is in economic crisis and which will, sooner or later, collapse under the weight of its own contradictions (how you can you have one interest rate for Germany and Greece without a fully integrated economic union, including fiscal transfers?).
Of course one of the most pro-Euro people was Alex Salmond, the man who said in 1999 that sterling was a 'milstone around Scotland's neck' and that it should join the Euro. The same Alex Salmond who in 2014 was up in arms that the rest of the UK would not form a sterling currency union with Scotland!!!!!
Your argument is also really odd when you consider that two of the most prosperous countries in the world, Switzerland and Norway, are doing just fine outside the EU.
Even Iceland is now drawing back from EU membership.
"We were told that an independent Scotland would lose influence in the world. But how much influence will the UK have once it isolates itself from all of its neighbours, leaving the Franco-German axis as the only show in town when the US wants to talk to Europe about something?"
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that EU members are often massively divided on big foreign affairs questions; eg, the French and Germans were anti the Iraq War but the UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, etc, were in favour. Conversely, only France has allied with the US re action in Syria.
The EU can't even sort out problems on its own doorstep; look how divided and ineffective it was over the Balkans crises.
Do you think that Norway and Switzerland are 'isolated' because they are not in the EU? If they are, I would love that level of isolations if it gives us the same levels of prosperity!
In terms of the US attitude, I am sure that they will do what they always do; act in their own interests.
It is also always really amusing to see pro-EU Scots so blinkered about how they would be treated as an independent small country in the EU. How easily you forget how Ireland was bullied and patronised over the Lisbon Treaty or how Chirac attacked eastern European countries, at that point hoping to join the EU, saying they missed a great opportunity to "shut up" when they signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq.
"We were told that an independent Scotland would be an international pariah if it "defaulted" on its (non-existent) debt. But just how much respect will Britain command around the world if it becomes the only European country other than autocratic Belarus that doesn't accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights?"
ReplyDeleteAs I am sure that you are aware, the ECHR is seperate from the EU so technically that does not have anything to do with EU membership.
But in terms of the question that you pose, I am sure that it would get quite a bit of respect from many of the peoples of Europe (though not from the governing classes) and outside of the EU most people would be amazed that a suspposedly sovereign country is subject to the rulings of a foreign court.
Can you imagine the Canadians accepting rulings from a court in Florida, the Australians accepting rulings from a court in Auckland, or the South Koreans accepting rulings from a court in Bangkok?
By your logic these countries are international pariahs not worthy of respect?
I've been having a running argument on wings about the EU.
ReplyDeleteI used to be all for it, not anymore. I'd much prefer us to be an EFTA country rather than in the EU.
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, but have to pay massive contributions to the EU and accept all of its regulations even though they have absolutely no say in them. They have to put up with this in order to gain access to the single market.
ReplyDelete"If you accept, as you obviously do, that an independent Scotland would not have been a basket case then why do you think that the UK outside the EU would be one?"
ReplyDeleteBecause that's a self-evidently false comparison. An independent Scotland would not be outside the European single market. Nor is Norway, which is another false comparison that you made - Norway is inside the European Economic Area. Switzerland is technically outside the EEA, but has unique bilateral agreements with the EU which make it functionally indistinguishable from an EEA member. Farage, in case you're unaware, wants us outside the EEA as well as outside the EU.
"The same Alex Salmond who in 2014 was up in arms that the rest of the UK would not form a sterling currency union with Scotland!!!!!"
Sigh. Another one who fell hook, line and sinker for the propaganda. Alex Salmond was not "up in arms" about anything. He very calmly pointed out that the London parties were bluffing. (Feel free to add the five exclamation marks to the end of that clarification.)
"Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, but have to pay massive contributions to the EU and accept all of its regulations even though they have absolutely no say in them. They have to put up with this in order to gain access to the single market."
ReplyDeleteTrue but the reflects more on the EU than it does on those two countries.
The key point is that neither of them thinks that it is worth becoming full members of the EU.
Both countries greatly value their sovereignty and do not want to give it up to Brussels. The Swiss have a tradition of proud independence stretching back to the middle ages, while the Norwegians still remember what it was like to be politically dominated by Denmark and Sweden.
In both, voters have consistently shown that they have no wish to compromise their sovereignty by joining the European Union’s superstate.
The Swiss particularly fear their tradition of more direct democracy would be threatened with EU membership, as laws from Brussels could not be overturned by referendum as at present.
While it is true that trading freely with the EU requires acceptance of many of its rules, neither country has given up control over key policy areas such as agriculture, fishing (highly important for Norway) and foreign affairs. The Swiss in particular have done well out of bilateral deals with the EU – would their concerns in areas such as banking and farming be listened to as carefully once they were inside the club?
The reality is that it is the EU that is failing, not Switzerland and Norway.
"or how Chirac attacked eastern European countries, at that point hoping to join the EU, saying they missed a great opportunity to "shut up" when they signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq"
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I think you may be misreading the Scottish people somewhat if you think they're going to be impressed by a claim made, even after all this time, that Blair was right about Iraq and Chirac was wrong.
"As I am sure that you are aware, the ECHR is seperate from the EU so technically that does not have anything to do with EU membership."
Which is a rather redundant point because it must have been obvious that I wasn't talking about the EU - I pointed out that Belarus is the only other European country that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the ECHR. There are many, many European countries other than Belarus that are not members of the EU. Astonishingly, it's not only UKIP that are talking about putting the UK on a par with Belarus by withdrawing from the ECHR - the Tories are at it as well.
"Can you imagine the Canadians accepting rulings from a court in Florida"
If a pan-American Human Rights court was set up and was based in Florida, then plainly the answer to your question is yes. If Canada was one of only two countries in the Americas that refused to accept the jurisdiction of that court, I'd be drawing the same conclusion about them as I would about the prospective Belarus-UK axis.
"Farage, in case you're unaware, wants us outside the EEA as well as outside the EU."
ReplyDeleteFarage is never going to be PM so even if we do leave the EU at some point the negotiations on our future relationship will not be led by him.
I guess that such negotiations would result in us having a similar relationship to the EU as Norway and Switzerland which, as outlined in my post above, seems to work well for them and which they certainly consider preferable to full EU membership.
Of course it is in the interests of the other EU countires to have a relationship with us since we run a massive trade deficit with them.
Sorry you were offended by the five exclamation marks but the irony of a man who had previously claimed that sterling was a milstone round Scotland's neck then complaining that the rest of the UK would not form a sterling curency union with an independent Scotland is staggering.
Nope. You're still not listening. He wasn't "complaining" about anything - he was pointing out that they were bluffing.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "staggering" bit, Alex Salmond is hardly the only senior politician in the UK who has changed his mind about his preferred currency option over the last twenty years - in fact he's probably in the majority.
or how Chirac attacked eastern European countries, at that point hoping to join the EU, saying they missed a great opportunity to "shut up" when they signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq"
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I think you may be misreading the Scottish people somewhat if you think they're going to be impressed by a claim made, even after all this time, that Blair was right about Iraq and Chirac was wrong.
Hmmm. I think you may be misreading the Scottish people somewhat if you think they're going to be impressed by a claim made, even after all this time, that Blair was right about Iraq and Chirac was wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe point is not whether or not Chirac has been proved right on Iraq (he clearly has) but that his comment revealed a mindset towards the 'small' countries which is patronising and condescending.
Regardless of whether countries such as Poland had the correct stance on the Iraq War do you think that telling them to 'shut up' was the correct way to address them?
"If a pan-American Human Rights court was set up and was based in Florida, then plainly the answer to your question is yes."
ReplyDeleteBut that is exactly the point: there is no such court, nor is there an South East Asian Court of Human Rights, nor a South American Court of Human Rights, etc.
Canada, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc, etc, all have their own human rights laws.
If we accept that these countries, and many more, are basically civilised nations that are not international pariahs, why would Britian be regarded as such if it does likewise?
This links into the immigration debate; in virtually every other country in the world outside of the EU it is taken for granted that countries have control over their borders and decide who can and cannot come in.
In fact, in the literal sense UKIP's immigration policy is probably the least racist of the mainstream parties since at the moment, in a pitiful attempt to control overall immigration, we seek to restrict (mainly asian, black, etc) immigration from outside the EU because we have (overwhelmingly white) uncontrolled immigration from the EU.
"Nope. You're still not listening. He wasn't "complaining" about anything - he was pointing out that they were bluffing."
ReplyDeleteCome on. He has gone from making a statement which was not just pro the Euro (a massive error of judgement), but which explicitly stated that sterling was a drag on Scotland, to a position where he said that a sterling union was essential to the prosperity of the whole UK. He has had a massive fail on the currency question.
As for the "staggering" bit, Alex Salmond is hardly the only senior politician in the UK who has changed his mind about his preferred currency option over the last twenty years - in fact he's probably in the majority.
Quite agree - although of course that means that the vast majority of the Conservative Party and UKIP have been proved right on one of the most important questions of our recent history.
However, it still does not explain how Salmond, an economist by training, made such a massive blunder. You do not need to have a Nobel prize in ecomomics to have worked out that a single interest rate for a Eurozone area including Greece and Germany was never going to work.
Switzerland doesn't in fact pay a "massive contribution" to the EU - it does pay in but at a much lower level than if it were an EU member.
ReplyDeleteAnd leaving the EU shouldn't pose a problem for the CTA with Ireland - Switzerland is outside the EU but is inside Schengen.
I reckoon the UK leaving the EU would not be such a disaster, in the same way that Scotland leaving the UK wouldn't have been as much of a disaster as stated by Better Together.
"But that is exactly the point: there is no such court, nor is there an South East Asian Court of Human Rights, nor a South American Court of Human Rights, etc."
ReplyDeleteExactly. We live in Europe, not in any other continent. It's a fact, which you cannot dispute, that if we withdraw from the ECHR we will be the only country in the entire continent other than autocratic Belarus not to accept the court's jurisdiction. Even Russia - RUSSIA, for God's sake - does so.
Aspiring to be more like Alexander Lukashenko may be your vision for the UK's future, but it's sure as hell not my vision for Scotland's.
"He has had a massive fail on the currency question."
ReplyDeleteThe opinion polls don't bear you out there, I'm afraid. It was Osborne's stance on the currency which nobody bought into.
"And leaving the EU shouldn't pose a problem for the CTA with Ireland - Switzerland is outside the EU but is inside Schengen."
ReplyDeleteWhich returns to the point about why the comparison with Switzerland is a bogus one. Farage wants to withdraw from the EEA because he can't accept the rules on freedom to live and work in any EEA state. Both Switzerland and Norway accept those rules.
"Even Russia - RUSSIA, for God's sake - does so."
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the fact that Russia has signed up to the ECHR was of great consolation to the Pussy Riot members (to give just one example) when they were in jail for exercising their 'right to free speech.'
So would you rather live in Russia, under the 'protection' of the ECHR, or Canada, whose people are not covered but it?
I know which of the two countries is considered an international pariah and which would be much more likely to protect my human rights.
"Regardless of whether countries such as Poland had the correct stance on the Iraq War do you think that telling them to 'shut up' was the correct way to address them?"
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you've now clarified that when you referred to Chirac's attitude to "small countries" you were actually talking about countries like Poland.
Poland is not a small country. It's almost eight times larger than Scotland, and roughly the same size as Spain. If Chirac had an attitude problem, it was more to do with countries' non-EU status, rather than their size.
"I am sure that the fact that Russia has signed up to the ECHR was of great consolation to the Pussy Riot members (to give just one example) when they were in jail for exercising their 'right to free speech.'"
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight - you think it would be an advance for Human Rights in Russia if they withdrew from the ECHR on the grounds of "well, if it's good enough for Great Britain..."?
"He has had a massive fail on the currency question."
ReplyDeleteI was talking about his judgement on the Euro. He strongly supported it and it has been proven to be an absolute disaster which is caUsing misery across Europe.
He then did a massive about turn from saying that sterling was holding Scotland back to saying that a sterling currency union was essential for the prosperity of the whole UK?
Moreover, his support for the Euro was intellectually incoherent. If the whole argument of the SNP is that being part of the UK is holding Scotland back, and that Scotland should take control of its own affairs, how is having your interest rates set in Frankfurt preferable to it having it set in London by the Bank of England?
Plus, we now see that countries are having to have their budgets approved by the EU and are threatened with fines if they feel to meet specific targets.
"He strongly supported it and it has been proven to be an absolute disaster which is caUsing misery across Europe."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that kind of extreme language is strengthening your argument. If the euro had really been an unmitigated disaster it would have fallen apart by now. Even Greece has managed to stay in, against all expectations.
As I've already noted, Alex Salmond is just one of countless senior UK politicians who have reversed their previous support for euro membership. Many of them are to be found in the current UK government, which is the most anti-European government in decades.
It's interesting that you've now clarified that when you referred to Chirac's attitude to "small countries" you were actually talking about countries like Poland.
ReplyDeletePoland is not a small country. It's almost eight times larger than Scotland, and roughly the same size as Spain. If Chirac had an attitude problem, it was more to do with countries' non-EU status, rather than their size.
I made a mistake in referring to it as a small country when it is clearly not in terms of population or geography. I suspect that Chirac probably meant 'not politically significant' or something like that.
But that does negate the fact that countries that are not regarded as politically significant or are smaller are treated differently; when Ireland votes against the Lisbon Treaty it is told to vote again, when the French vote on the EU Constitution the whole thing collapses. When a country such as Poland, which is about to join the EU, expresses its opinion on the Iraq War it is told to shut up by Chirac, but he does not tell the UK, Spain or Italy to shut up despite them having the same position as Poland. Greece and Poland are singled out for breaches of the growth and stability pact but potentially much more serious breaches (due to the size of their economies) by France and Germany are ignored, etc, etc.
"I don't think that kind of extreme language is strengthening your argument. If the euro had really been an unmitigated disaster it would have fallen apart by now. Even Greece has managed to stay in, against all expectations.
ReplyDeleteAs I've already noted, Alex Salmond is just one of countless senior UK politicians who have reversed their previous support for euro membership. Many of them are to be found in the current UK government, which is the most anti-European government in decades."
I don't think that it is extreme at all; if you look at countries such as Greece and Portugal, in any normal situation they would have devalued and, after an intially difficult period, they would have started to reap the benefits of an economic recovery.
For a start, as countries who rely strongly on tourism, they would have received an immediate boost as holidays there became cheaper.
But they can't do this because they are in the Euro and millions of their citizens are suffering the consequences.
As far as I am concerned, it is the people who, for political reasons, created the Euro who are the extremists.
The Euro has survived until now but it is going to collapse at some point because the contradictions are too great.
Ironically, it may well be one of the bigger countries, such as Italy or France, who cause its collapse.
As stated before, Salmond clearly was not alone, but I really do fail to understand how a professional economist would think that a currency union involving Germany at one extreme and Greece at another was going to be a success.
"So let me get this straight - you think it would be an advance for Human Rights in Russia if they withdrew from the ECHR on the grounds of "well, if it's good enough for Great Britain..."?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would make any difference because, as the Pussy Riot example shows (and I am sure that there are countless others that are not so high profile) Russia may be a signatory to the ECHR but it clearly does not uphold one of the most back human rights: freedom of speech.
I would also guess that if you are gay in Russia you are not particularly reassured by the fact that Russia has signed the ECHR.
So why make such a fetish of the ECHR?
If we can agree that human rights are much more protected in Canada, which is not in the ECHR, than Russia, which is, why should Britain leaving the ECHR and creating its own human rights framework be seen as being so wrong?
"If we can agree that human rights are much more protected in Canada, which is not in the ECHR, than Russia, which is, why should Britain leaving the ECHR and creating its own human rights framework be seen as being so wrong?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it would weaken the human rights framework. You're not suggesting that we pull out so we can ENHANCE human rights protection, are you? Precisely. Once we're out, countries like Russia will have the perfect excuse to withdraw as well. And, with respect, if you really think the likes of Pussy Riot wouldn't be alarmed by the prospect of their country not even having the limited protection that the ECHR affords, then perhaps you ought to ask them first. You might be given pause for thought.
"Because it would weaken the human rights framework. You're not suggesting that we pull out so we can ENHANCE human rights protection, are you?"
ReplyDeleteWell, the question of whether human rights would be 'enhanced' or not is a subjective one.
For example, I would like to see very robust legislation in relation to freedom of speech. This would mean that, for example, the freedom of speech of those whish to mock Islam or Christianity is protected but equally the freedom of speech of those Muslims who think that Western society is decadent, etc, should also be equally protected.
Equally, I would like to see very robust legislation to protect gay rights.
However, I believe that our Parliament should decide whether or not prisoners should have the right to vote, not the ECHR.
"Once we're out, countries like Russia will have the perfect excuse to withdraw as well"
Ironically, you are now sounding like a British nationlist! Do you really think that Putin cares whether Britain (or anyone else for that matter) is in the ECHR.
What difference would it make anyway if they did withdraw when they cannot even adhere to one of the most basic rights; that of freedom of speech?
"And, with respect, if you really think the likes of Pussy Riot wouldn't be alarmed by the prospect of their country not even having the limited protection that the ECHR affords, then perhaps you ought to ask them first. You might be given pause for thought"
How is it even 'limited' when they end up in prison?
"Ironically, you are now sounding like a British nationlist! Do you really think that Putin cares whether Britain (or anyone else for that matter) is in the ECHR."
ReplyDeleteYes, I do. I absolutely do, and I'm struggling to understand how anyone can credibly argue otherwise. The ECHR currently has a virtually blanket jurisdiction across the entire continent of Europe. As soon as that is broken by a major country like the UK withdrawing, it becomes infinitely easier for Russia to follow suit.
"Yes, I do. I absolutely do, and I'm struggling to understand how anyone can credibly argue otherwise. The ECHR currently has a virtually blanket jurisdiction across the entire continent of Europe. As soon as that is broken by a major country like the UK withdrawing, it becomes infinitely easier for Russia to follow suit."
ReplyDeleteBut it would make no difference if Russia did leave because they clearly do not uphold one of the most basic rights: the right to free speech (plus many more besides).
I really do not understand this fetish in relation to the ECHR. It is perfectly possible to be an advanced, tolerant nation without subjecting yourselves to its judgements (as many countries around the world prove).
"But it would make no difference if Russia did leave"
ReplyDeleteIf you really believe that (I don't), then why not set about the urgent task of strengthening the ECHR across the continent, by for example the power of good example - the UK implementing rulings promptly?
Erm, why all the talk of Salmond?
ReplyDeleteIs that not a bit out of date now?
Jeez, unionists need to get over September and move on. It's like they can't accept things are moving forward now / changing rapidly and they keep going back to the 19th and dragging up the past like Salmond when Sturgeon is already confirmed as new leader and FM. Unionists - you won, get over it!
As an aside, if Comres is to be believed, the natural party of Scotland is no longer Labour, but SNP. Party ID (i.e. which party people identify most with rather than what they actually plan to vote) is now strongly SNP (37%) and no longer Labour (25%). This is unprecedented if true. Big change occurred in July-August and has continued since. It's partly behind the SNP surge.
Doesn't bode well for Labour folks hoping people 'returning to their natural party' for the GE as that's SNP.
"If you really believe that (I don't),"
ReplyDeleteI believe it based on the fact that people who exercise their 'right to free speech' end up in prison (and that is just one high profile case so there are no doubt countless others).
"then why not set about the urgent task of strengthening the ECHR across the continent, by for example the power of good example - the UK implementing rulings promptly?"
Firstly, whether the UK implements rulings promptly will make absolutely no difference to the human rights situation in Russia.
Secondly, I want human rights legislation to be domestically based, just as it is in most civilised countries outside the EU. I don't view this as being a particualrly controversial position, particualrly in a global context.
"Firstly, whether the UK implements rulings promptly will make absolutely no difference to the human rights situation in Russia."
ReplyDeleteRubbish. If established democracies like the UK treat the court with contempt, Russia barely even needs to look for an excuse. If you wonder why the ECHR couldn't protect Pussy Riot, look to the effect your own arguments are having.
"Secondly, I want human rights legislation to be domestically based, just as it is in most civilised countries outside the EU"
You don't mean outside the EU - you mean outside Europe. Every non-EU country in Europe is covered by the jurisdiction of the ECHR, with the exception of Lukashenko's Belarus.
Well Eurosceptic anon (whose motivation for circumventing ECHR is apparently Islamophobia), I'm not very clued up on this sort of thing but speaking as an amateur and simple minded observer I feel much better about human rights legislation being out of the hands of my government and in the hands of huge international bodies e.g. EU, UN.
ReplyDeleteGiven the tendency of our governments in the last 20 years to take away freedoms in the name of national security, but in practice so they can control us and know more about us, I wouldn't trust them in a hundred years. The EU and UN are far more trustworthy by comparison.
"Farage wants" - yeah it's easy to poke holes in Farage's argument.
ReplyDeleteI was pointing out two things: talk of the CTA being jeopardised by Brexit isn't based in fact, and the claim by another commenter that Switzerland makes "massive contributions" to the EU is false.
"talk of the CTA being jeopardised by Brexit isn't based in fact"
ReplyDeleteIt absolutely is. If the UK leaves the EU, it'll be to a large extent because of the unwillingness (in complete contrast to Norway and Switzerland) to accept uncontrolled EU immigration. If Ireland remains in the EU after Brexit (which it will), the problem with retaining a completely open border with Ireland is obvious.
Sounds like a couple of far-right kippers are still upset after they were made to look even more stupid than usual last night on QT.
ReplyDeleteLOL
Maybe they should stick to Stormfront Lite and their witless racism.