The Brexit Consequences Thread

Sure, but as was widely advertised in the Brexit trailers for at least four years prior, the second one was an inevitable consequence of the first one, so can be reasonably considered part of the same thing.
Does it still hurt, this Brexit thing you so obviously were against?
I'm sure your predictions coming true must help you sleep at night and give you a little stiffy.
The violence will have nothing to do with lockdown frustrations and the shiit stirring politicians though, oh no....it's nasty Brexit and Boris grr.
If only we would have listened to you, eh.

Still, no hard feelings, bro.

From a personal perspective, Ireland can have the North tomorrow, we're well shot of the money pit.
 
Does it still hurt, this Brexit thing you so obviously were against?
I'm sure your predictions coming true must help you sleep at night and give you a little stiffy.
The violence will have nothing to do with lockdown frustrations and the shiit stirring politicians though, oh no....it's nasty Brexit and Boris grr.
If only we would have listened to you, eh.

Still, no hard feelings, bro.

From a personal perspective, Ireland can have the North tomorrow, we're well shot of the money pit.
If the Loyalists want to stay in the EU it is dead easy.
Vote for Sin Fein and Reunification.
 
@ Sarastro
Your comment "the second one was an inevitable consequence of the first one," If your talking about the NI protocol er actually it wasn't. It's the truly ironic paradox that we have what everyone said they didn't want for an illogical reason. I said far earlier ion the Brexit discussions that the systems to track trade already existed and that it actually benefitted the EU as the black hole in the system. Let me put it this way.

The Irish joined on our backs with the CTA in place for travel ( not trade) which the EEC accepted. Due to the tensions between Ireland and us remote warehousing has been in existence since the year dot, but since the border hasn't been covered (the trade) aspect was never actually verified which means that both sides gain and the EU can write off. Now we've left the EU that wouldn't necessarily change except the EU has demanded double indemnity and ignored remote warehousing. But that undermines the GFA and the undertakings in GFA about British sovereignty in NI. Now when Boris tried to rectify that within the terms allowing both sides to take remedial action the EU talked of breaching international Law, which it has itself breached. Don't forget it was the IRA firebombing our customs stations.
 
Agreed but what does throwing petrol bombs at the PSNI achieve?

Absolutely nothing. Which is why 99.9% of those opposed to the Protocol aren't doing it.

The protocol is one thing on a long list of problems that have triggered these riots. Everything from feeling that the GFA has favoured one side of the community through to the UDA having a tantrum about their drugs business being damaged by recent PSNI operations.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Does it still hurt, this Brexit thing you so obviously were against?
I'm sure your predictions coming true must help you sleep at night and give you a little stiffy.
The violence will have nothing to do with lockdown frustrations and the shiit stirring politicians though, oh no....it's nasty Brexit and Boris grr.
If only we would have listened to you, eh.

Still, no hard feelings, bro.

From a personal perspective, Ireland can have the North tomorrow, we're well shot of the money pit.
So...I'm taking from that: you were right. Fair enough, usually the case tbh. And then a lot of stuff about your feelings, which I'm less concerned with.

@ Sarastro
Your comment "the second one was an inevitable consequence of the first one," If your talking about the NI protocol er actually it wasn't. It's the truly ironic paradox that we have what everyone said they didn't want for an illogical reason. I said far earlier ion the Brexit discussions that the systems to track trade already existed and that it actually benefitted the EU as the black hole in the system. Let me put it this way.

The Irish joined on our backs with the CTA in place for travel ( not trade) which the EEC accepted. Due to the tensions between Ireland and us remote warehousing has been in existence since the year dot, but since the border hasn't been covered (the trade) aspect was never actually verified which means that both sides gain and the EU can write off. Now we've left the EU that wouldn't necessarily change except the EU has demanded double indemnity and ignored remote warehousing. But that undermines the GFA and the undertakings in GFA about British sovereignty in NI. Now when Boris tried to rectify that within the terms allowing both sides to take remedial action the EU talked of breaching international Law, which it has itself breached. Don't forget it was the IRA firebombing our customs stations.

True, the exact formula of the current NI protocol was not inevitable. But disappointing some or every one due to the various contradictions promised was inevitable, and the general boosterism in suggesting that the EU wouldn't be at their most intractable over border issues was always moronic. The inevitability was that you don't piss people off and then expect them to do you a favour. By all means, still piss them off it it's required: but only an idiot still expects the favour. That is what I mean by "it was inevitable". Of course the EU didn't give us what we wanted.

You're on ARRSE so I'd reckon there's an evens chance you've been divorced at least once. An outcome being logical has little to do with whether it happens, when you add spite and competition into the mix.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
According to the Speccy, it appears that the end to the (until recently apparently endless) Brexit/Remain squabble is in sight:


Or not:


Carry on normal jogging whinging....
"Both sides of the BREXIT debate . . . " ?!

WHY, is anyone STILL "debating" BRXIT ?!
 

Blogg

LE
Oh the bitter tears of Remainers

"Brexit has dropped sharply as a source of risk to businesses from the top positions it has held on the CFO risk list since the EU referendum. Close to 10% of surveyed CFOs have experienced significant or severe disruption to their businesses due to Breixt. However, they believe interruptions will fade, with only 3% expecting similar levels of disruption in a year's time."

 
So...I'm taking from that: you were right. Fair enough, usually the case tbh. And then a lot of stuff about your feelings, which I'm less concerned with.



True, the exact formula of the current NI protocol was not inevitable. But disappointing some or every one due to the various contradictions promised was inevitable, and the general boosterism in suggesting that the EU wouldn't be at their most intractable over border issues was always moronic. The inevitability was that you don't piss people off and then expect them to do you a favour. By all means, still piss them off it it's required: but only an idiot still expects the favour. That is what I mean by "it was inevitable". Of course the EU didn't give us what we wanted.

You're on ARRSE so I'd reckon there's an evens chance you've been divorced at least once. An outcome being logical has little to do with whether it happens, when you add spite and competition into the mix.
So kind, but no, never been divorced, been married 47 years in September. FWIW I have never liked the word inevitable. Nothing is. No it’s not all been plain sailing. As a customs officer I sometimes didn’t have have two pence to rub together . Certainly not as much as policemen.
But that’s by the by. NI was one reason I felt a no deal would have been appropriate. What really got me was it was evident that neither side really understood the true customs implications and that’s why I say there was no inevitability about it. spite on the other hand, together with EU duplicity was the key.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
So kind, but no, never been divorced, been married 47 years in September. FWIW I have never liked the word inevitable. Nothing is. No it’s not all been plain sailing. As a customs officer I sometimes didn’t have have two pence to rub together . Certainly not as much as policemen.
But that’s by the by. NI was one reason I felt a no deal would have been appropriate. What really got me was it was evident that neither side really understood the true customs implications and that’s why I say there was no inevitability about it. spite on the other hand, together with EU duplicity was the key.
Well, 50% of the time I'm right 100% of the time.

I think you missed my point: the disappointment wasn't inevitable because the outcome was inevitable, the disappointment was inevitable because too many contradictory promises were made. No outcome could have satisfied all promises.
 
Well, 50% of the time I'm right 100% of the time.

I think you missed my point: the disappointment wasn't inevitable because the outcome was inevitable, the disappointment was inevitable because too many contradictory promises were made. No outcome could have satisfied all promises.

As if political promises ever come to fruitation...
 
As we are talking about spite coming from the EU, from where I am sitting I don't think we have seen the half of it yet.
Praise the Lord for a couple of major national elections coming up this year and next, then we'll see.
 

Blogg

LE
I am claiming the Cameron Greenshill scandle as a Brexit consequence. If he had not lost the referendum he would still be PM (second term) and not have his nose in the lobbying trogh. ;)


It is more than a bit of Lobbying for a few quid.

He was granted stock options over about 1% of the company which his big mate Lex Greensill was claiming would float with a market value of around £7Bn, netting call me Dave $70m ish.

Greensill Capital is now bust, alleged amongst other things to have sold well dodgey stuff on, receivables which are claimed to have come from non existent transaction and involves parts of the far from lovely Gupta GFG Alliance empire.


It is a very deep, stinking swamp and has already been likened to Enron.

Dave may get a pass on the Lobbying Rules "investigation" but the stench of this will stick to him for a long time.
 
Well, 50% of the time I'm right 100% of the time.

I think you missed my point: the disappointment wasn't inevitable because the outcome was inevitable, the disappointment was inevitable because too many contradictory promises were made. No outcome could have satisfied all promises.
Consider yourself right 50% of the time. This is of course streets ahead of the pundits. All the political promises gained NI money under May, basically counterbalanced what they could have expected from EU regional funding. That the EU effectively reneged on the GFA is no surprise as strategically a separated U.K. would have been more vulnerable than with NI. The Irish mentality as I understand it will settle down to an unspoken compromise that will undermine the agreement in the long run, which will also satisfy the EU.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
As if political promises ever come to fruitation...
Yes, but not all political promises are backed quite so enthusiastically, at the time, as they were by many Brexit supporters.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Yes. They always are.

Are you some kind of gullible cnut?
Are you some kind of garden-variety, general duties cnut? If you have a point at all, free free to make it. So far it seems to be hiding behind the bigger kids and saying "YEAH!".
 
Top