Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[filopastry]

I imagine May will start talking increasingly tough on Brexit until the Tory party conference is out of the way, so more wasted time to come.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I imagine May will start talking increasingly tough on Brexit until the Tory party conference is out of the way, so more wasted time to come.

For a Vicars daughter she don't half tell some fucking whoppers.

[Trada]

Surprised to see Lewis Goodall give May a right grilling just now on Skynews mind you she hardly answered any question and just give variations of the same answer.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Surprised to see Lewis Goodall give May a right grilling just now on Skynews mind you she hardly answered any question and just give variations of the same answer.

So her and Corbyn have at least two things in common then.

[SP]

Surprised to see Lewis Goodall give May a right grilling just now on Skynews mind you she hardly answered any question and just give variations of the same answer.

Can you remember any specific answers ever? It is all Leave means leave style fluff.

[ShakaHislop]

Still not facing up to reality, and that £4b bribe can be added to the ever-increasing cost of Brexit.

In an interview with the BBC, Mrs May played down warnings by Chancellor Philip Hammond last week about the risks of a no-deal exit - which he said could have a £80bn negative economic impact.

She said the comments were based on analysis first released in January that were, at the time, a "work in progress".

Mrs May then cited comments by the head of the World Trade Organisation, who said Brexit "won't be a walk in the park, but won't be end of the world either".

Some Tory MPs have said they cannot support Mrs May's blueprint for the UK's future relations with the EU, saying it is a betrayal of the millions who voted to leave the EU in 2016.

But Mrs May said the proposals were sensible as they insisted that an end to EU freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court was "non-negotiable", while ensuring British manufacturers had unrestricted access to an EU wide free trade zone for goods.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45336223

[oldfordie]

Still not facing up to reality, and that £4b bribe can be added to the ever-increasing cost of Brexit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45336223

She might as well tell the EU can we join the Customs union please but don't tell anybody. not enough.

[Trada]

With C4 News and Sky News giving May a right roasting it will be interesting to see what BBC News did.

Crick and his questions about what did she do to help free Mandela when the Tories called him a Terrorist left her squirming.

[TepidT2O]

The only options are no deal or hard Brexit.

This, both parties are promoting two dire outcomes for the UK.

Neither party will answer questions about how much worse off we will be.... a load of fuxking heartless charlatans the lot of them.

[west_london_red]

The only options are no deal or hard Brexit.

This, both parties are promoting two dire outcomes for the UK.

Neither party will answer questions about how much worse off we will be.... a load of fuxking heartless charlatans the lot of them.

Not that I particularly disagree with this, but how much of a difference do you think this honesty approach would actually make? Cameron, Osborne, most of the mainstream political establishment across all sides, business leaders, medical professionals, and all kinds of other influential people of all types were honest with the people of this country about the impact of Brexit... and 52% of the electorate still ignored them so I am not sure how much of a difference telling people again what they have been told a million times is going to make any difference.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Not that I particularly disagree with this, but how much of a difference do you think this honesty approach would actually make? Cameron, Osborne, most of the mainstream political establishment across all sides, business leaders, medical professionals, and all kinds of other influential people of all types were honest with the people of this country about the impact of Brexit... and 52% of the electorate still ignored them so I am not sure how much of a difference telling people again what they have been told a million times is going to make any difference.

With the added proof that leave lied their way to victory it would make all the difference imo.

Oh and it wasn't 52% of the electorate,it was just 52% of those that bothered to get off their arses and vote.

[oldfordie]

Not that I particularly disagree with this, but how much of a difference do you think this honesty approach would actually make? Cameron, Osborne, most of the mainstream political establishment across all sides, business leaders, medical professionals, and all kinds of other influential people of all types were honest with the people of this country about the impact of Brexit... and 52% of the electorate still ignored them so I am not sure how much of a difference telling people again what they have been told a million times is going to make any difference.

What was said before the referendum and what happened after are two different things.
Parliament debates became a farce after Brexit and it took over a year before the Will of the people cheers faded away. too late the damage has been done.
The countries attitude to Brexit today would have been far different if Parliament had acted honestly and responsibly straight after the referendum when nobody had a clue what Brexit meant, May defined Brexit a few months after the referendum, it not only meant leaving the Single Market and joining some imaginary Single Market it meant leaving the Customs union and joining some other imaginary Customs union as well, it meant no ECJ or Euratom and the impossible full Sovereignty no country has. the whole period was a complete disaster for British politics.

[west_london_red]

With the added proof that leave lied their way to victory it would make all the difference imo.

Oh and it wasn't 52% of the electorate,it was just 52% of those that bothered to get off their arses and vote.

There’s very little evidence of that, Hammond made some warnings recently and gets denounced as continuing Project Fear, opinion polls have moved towards Remain since 2016, but not in any meaningful numbers considering how badly the process of leaving is going and how much they lied.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

There’s very little evidence of that, Hammond made some warnings recently and gets denounced as continuing Project Fear, opinion polls have moved towards Remain since 2016, but not in any meaningful numbers considering how badly the process of leaving is going and how much they lied.

A lot of people have switched off to it so the polls wouldn't reflect what people would do when given the real facts.

Lets face it,only fucking morons and twats like Mogg would vote leave after being presented with the truth,a truth that would be impossible for the leave dickheads to counter.

And yes I blame Labour because I expected more from them.

[stara]

Just announced shiny new SACU roll-over deal is at best of terms £2.7 billion worth of trade for the UK, but it is attached to £4 billion ‘bung’ to SACU countries.  So, UK is coming out of this £1.3 billion down. That's clever play for SACU and sign of things to come.

[So… Howard Philips]

Just announced shiny new SACU roll-over deal is at best of terms £2.7 billion worth of trade for the UK, but it is attached to £4 billion ‘bung’ to SACU countries.  So, UK is coming out of this £1.3 billion down. That's clever play for SACU and sign of things to come.

SACU?

[ShakaHislop]

The "arrogant political class" of nurses calling for another referendum.

Brexit poses risk to care, says Royal College of Nursing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45333267

[oldfordie]

Good question.
I’ve got a question for those who make the reasonable point that having a second Brexit vote would be undemocratic.
What percentage of the population would have to want a second vote before it would be more undemocratic NOT to have one ?

[oldfordie]

Just announced shiny new SACU roll-over deal is at best of terms £2.7 billion worth of trade for the UK, but it is attached to £4 billion ‘bung’ to SACU countries.  So, UK is coming out of this £1.3 billion down. That's clever play for SACU and sign of things to come.

This is sickening, all the patriotic speeches about having some belief in our country, all the sh.. about being positive, exciting new opportunities.
Here we are banging Africa a £4 bill backhander so they will give us the same deal as we have now through the EU deal.

Brexit: Theresa May claims trade deal success in Africa – but critics say it's a 'rollover' of existing EU agreement

'They’re reduced to celebrating an agreement to roll over a fraction of the existing trade deals that we already benefit from as EU members'


Last year, Britain exported £2.4bn worth of goods to the six African countries included in Ms May’s deal - just 0.7 per cent of the value of its exports to the EU and the rest of the world combined, which were worth £339bn.

And she said: “That’s why I’m delighted that we will today confirm plans to carry over the European Union’s Economic Partnership Agreement with the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) and Mozambique once the EU’s deal no longer applies to the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-trade-deal-africa-theresa-may-trip-post-brexit-eu-rollover-a8511871.html

[rob1966]

This is sickening, all the patriotic speeches about having some belief in our country, all the sh.. about being positive, exciting new opportunities.
Here we are banging Africa a £4 bill backhander so they will give us the same deal as we have now through the EU deal.

Brexit: Theresa May claims trade deal success in Africa – but critics say it's a 'rollover' of existing EU agreement

'They’re reduced to celebrating an agreement to roll over a fraction of the existing trade deals that we already benefit from as EU members'


Last year, Britain exported £2.4bn worth of goods to the six African countries included in Ms May’s deal - just 0.7 per cent of the value of its exports to the EU and the rest of the world combined, which were worth £339bn.

And she said: “That’s why I’m delighted that we will today confirm plans to carry over the European Union’s Economic Partnership Agreement with the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) and Mozambique once the EU’s deal no longer applies to the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-trade-deal-africa-theresa-may-trip-post-brexit-eu-rollover-a8511871.html

See, you are totally missing the point. When we renegotiate all the other 70 odd trade deals we aleady have with the EU, if we can get each one for £4 billion, then thats about £300 billion. We pay the EU about £13 billion a year, so it will only take us 23 years to pay the bungs off. Well worth it to be free of the EU and their stupid rules and regulations. If we stupidly replace the EU funding, that only leaves £8.6 billion a year, so it'll take about 35 years - so fuck the Welsh, the North East and Cornwall, lets get it done in 23 years.

Easy peasy this Brexit lark.

[oldfordie]

See, you are totally missing the point. When we renegotiate all the other 70 odd trade deals we aleady have with the EU, if we can get each one for £4 billion, then thats about £300 billion. We pay the EU about £13 billion a year, so it will only take us 23 years to pay the bungs off. Well worth it to be free of the EU and their stupid rules and regulations. If we stupidly replace the EU funding, that only leaves £8.6 billion a year, so it'll take about 35 years - so fuck the Welsh, the North East and Cornwall, lets get it done in 23 years.

Easy peasy this Brexit lark.

Yeah, that's my problem, always looking for facts and evidence instead of having some faith in our countries bargaining power after we leave the EU. so the going rate for backhanders on new trade deals is £4 bill for 0.7 of UK trade,I think you maybe a bit optimistic with that £300 bill figure if this is a sign of what is to come.
7% is £40bill, keeping the trade deals we have now assuming all the major countries are willing to take backhanders works out at £571bill but it's not the end of the world, these are just figures, I cant see how it will have any impact on our economy, NHS etc funding.

[rob1966]

Yeah, that's my problem, always looking for facts and evidence instead of having some faith in our countries bargaining power after we leave the EU. so the going rate for backhanders on new trade deals is £4 bill for 0.7 of UK trade,I think you maybe a bit optimistic with that £300 bill figure if this is a sign of what is to come.
4% is £40bill, keeping the trade deals we have now assuming all the major countries are willing to take backhanders works out at £571bill but it's not the end of the world, these are just figures, I cant see how it will have any impact on our economy, NHS etc funding.

Now £571 billion will take 43 years to pay off, so JRM is spot on when he says it'll take us 50 years to see the benefit.

Of course, we can easily cut that to 5 years by selling the NHS to the Americans - that's £130 billion a year savings right there. After all, as a well of Tory I once worked with said, no one actually uses the NHS anymore do they?

[oldfordie]

Now £571 billion will take 43 years to pay off, so JRM is spot on when he says it'll take us 50 years to see the benefit.

Of course, we can easily cut that to 5 years by selling the NHS to the Americans - that's £130 billion a year savings right there. After all, as a well of Tory I once worked with said, no one actually uses the NHS anymore do they?

Amazing isn't, JRM argues it will be 40-50 yrs before we see the benefit of Brexit, am sure we will hear that argument more after we leave the EU.
Looks like other countries will have to give us a backhander for a trade deal in future as we are already behind schedule.
Maybe we should start calling May Yosser Hughes, Gizza a deal, go on, Gizza a deal because thats how we look to the world right now.  the world has lost a lot of respect for this country, I can't blame them, It's embarrassing.

[stara]

Yeah, that's my problem, always looking for facts and evidence instead of having some faith in our countries bargaining power after we leave the EU. so the going rate for backhanders on new trade deals is £4 bill for 0.7 of UK trade,I think you maybe a bit optimistic with that £300 bill figure if this is a sign of what is to come.
7% is £40bill, keeping the trade deals we have now assuming all the major countries are willing to take backhanders works out at £571bill but it's not the end of the world, these are just figures, I cant see how it will have any impact on our economy, NHS etc funding.

Don't forget that May is expecting another £4 bill of private "investments" to Africa as part of this glorious trade deal. That's  £8 bill for 0.7 of UK trade. 

[oldfordie]

Don't forget that May is expecting another £4 bill of private "investments" to Africa as part of this glorious trade deal. That's  £8 bill for 0.7 of UK trade. 

Am sure she thinks it's a price well worth paying to save the Tory party from facing a backlash from voters. she promised us trade deals and she delivered one single -handed. Wonder woman.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Am sure she thinks it's a price well worth paying to save the Tory party from facing a backlash from voters. she promised us trade deals and she delivered one single -handed. Wonder woman.

Don't leave Corbyn out of that,at least May made an effort to campaign against leave prior to the vote.

[TepidT2O]

£92m


That’s what the chancellor has committed to investigating a British alternative to the Galileio gps satellite system..

When we’ve spent £1.2bn developing the Galileio system which were now going to entirely piss away because we can’t agree to pay for the rest of the it because we can’t get on with the French.

So we’re wasting the £1.2bn and we’re now wasting £92m on investigating a system that would be substantially worse than the Galileio system (and will never get built anyway)

JUST KEEP PAYING FOR THE GALILEIO SYSTEM YOU UTTER FUCKWITS

[WhereAngelsPlay]

£92m


That’s what the chancellor has committed to investigating a British alternative to the Galileio gps satellite system..

When we’ve spent £1.2bn developing the Galileio system which were now going to entirely piss away because we can’t agree to pay for the rest of the it because we can’t get on with the French.

So we’re wasting the £1.2bn and we’re now wasting £92m on investigating a system that would be substantially worse than the Galileio system (and will never get built anyway)

JUST KEEP PAYING FOR THE GALILEIO SYSTEM YOU UTTER FUCKWITS

That £92m isn't even enough to pay for the study that is going to cost £100+m & then the actually system will cost close to another £9bn.

[drmick]

Now £571 billion will take 43 years to pay off, so JRM is spot on when he says it'll take us 50 years to see the benefit.

Of course, we can easily cut that to 5 years by selling the NHS to the Americans - that's £130 billion a year savings right there. After all, as a well of Tory I once worked with said, no one actually uses the NHS anymore do they?

What else can they give up to save money? Is the NHS the single biggest saving?

NI block grant is £11bn. Scotland £30bn.

[TepidT2O]

That £92m isn't even enough to pay for the study that is going to cost £100+m & then the actually system will cost close to another £9bn.

It’s the most utter fucking stupidity I’ve ever heard..

Not wanting to lose pride is costing us a fortune and access to a gps system we’ve been part of developing.

This is behind incompetence.

[FlashGordon]

It’s the most utter fucking stupidity I’ve ever heard..

Not wanting to lose pride is costing us a fortune and access to a gps system we’ve been part of developing.

This is behind incompetence.

If this is behind incompetence I shudder to think what's beyond it.

[TepidT2O]

If this is behind incompetence I shudder to think what's beyond it.

Oops

[ShakaHislop]

Back May's Brexit plan or risk no deal, David Lidington tells EU

Speaking to a French business conference, Mr Lidington, who is Mrs May's de facto second-in-command, suggested there were only two choices on the table as Brexit talks entered a critical phase.

"With exactly seven months until the end of Article 50 process and less than two months ahead of the October European Council, we face the choice between the pragmatic proposals we are discussing now with the European Commission, or the risk of there being no deal.

"The alternative models do not meet the level of ambition or the outcome we all want to see delivered.

"So, we need the EU to engage with us on our positive vision of the future relationship."

His message was softened from a version of the speech released to journalists beforehand, which had simply warned of "no deal".

Raab appeared in front of a Lords Select Committee

On the £39bn Brexit "divorce bill", Mr Raab said a no-deal scenario could affect arrangements over payments to the EU.

"I don't think it could be safely assumed on anyone's side that the financial settlement as has been agreed by the withdrawal agreement would then just be paid in precisely the same shape or speed or rate if there was no deal."

And he rejected claims by pro-EU Labour peer Lord Liddle that any deal document was likely to be "vacuous" and "opaque", saying he expected it to contain a "degree of detail" and some "clear choices".

Meanwhile Mr Barnier, speaking Berlin, said the EU was "prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country".

But, he added, it would not permit anything that weakened the single market.

"We respect Britain's red lines scrupulously. In return, they must respect what we are. Single market means single market ... There is no single market a la carte," he told reporters.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

[oldfordie]

Back May's Brexit plan or risk no deal, David Lidington tells EU

Raab appeared in front of a Lords Select Committee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

Dangerous games being played by the UK, we know the EU wont agree to the Chequers deal, we knew why before the referendum and the EU have never given the slightest indication they will back down, we have to agree to EU rules and regulations, no cherry picking, drop our red lines or no deal.
This is about trying to lay the blame for a no deal on the EU rather than getting a deal. our government can't find a way out of this mess without ripping the Tory party to pieces.

Barnier knows exactly what the UK are up too, here's a deal if you want it but nothing changes. drop red lines.

[stara]

That £92m isn't even enough to pay for the study that is going to cost £100+m & then the actually system will cost close to another £9bn.

How and where they will launch those satellites once build? Russia, USA or ESA facilities at French Guiana?

European Space Agency's annual budget is €5 billion and to date, ESA has invested more than €2 billion in improving and developing the ground facilities at Europe’s Spaceport. I assume that total cost of launch site since sixties must tens of billions ...

"Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) will be given £2.5m from the UK government to develop the spaceport which could be up and running by the early 2020s."

 

[oldfordie]

So much for respecting democracy. lets face it if these impact statements were good news then they would be telling the world how much better off we will be, it must be bad if they are refusing to even tell our MPs.


No-deal Brexit: No 10 refuses to say MPs will see full impact analysis

Refusal comes despite default no-deal scenario if any deal negotiated with EU is rejected


Downing Street has refused to confirm that MPs will see a full economic analysis of the impact of a no-deal Brexit before their final vote on departure from the EU, even though such a scenario would happen by default if they rejected Theresa May’s proposals.

May has sought to distance herself from a warning by her chancellor, Philip Hammond, that leaving the EU without a deal could cost £80bn in extra borrowing, which No 10 has stressed comes from preliminary forecasts.
Downing Street has made it clear that if parliament rejected May’s plan, Brexit would still happen but with no deal in place.

Once a deal is reached, “the government will provide parliament with that meaningful analysis on the deal, ahead of the vote”, May’s spokesman said.

Asked if this would also include analysis and forecasts of other scenarios, he said: “I’m not going to get into what the precise nature of the analysis will look like, but once the deal is negotiated, MPs will then be presented with that analysis ahead of the final vote.” Asked if this would be just on May’s deal, he said: “On the deal.”

A decision to not release official analysis of the likely impact of no deal seems likely to prompt criticism that the government is seeking to keep information from MPs and bounce them into backing May’s plan.

The government is in the process of releasing a series of technical notices on the possible impacts for businesses and consumers of a no-deal departure.

The first tranche last week included warnings that consumers would face slower and more costly credit card payments when they bought EU products, and that British citizens living abroad could lose access to payments from their bank accounts.
The technical notices do not, however, constitute an overall forecast of the economic impact of no deal. Hammond’s £80bn figure came from separate Treasury forecasts.

Pressed repeatedly on the issue, May’s spokesman declined to confirm that anything more than the analysis of the impact of the preferred deal would be shown to MPs. “The analysis will be set out by the Treasury at the appropriate time,” he said. “I’m not going to get into what the analysis will contain.”

He said that both May and the Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, had been clear that they expected a deal: “We are confident that we will negotiate a successful outcome as a result of the ongoing dialogue with the commission, and that we will be presenting a deal to parliament.”

Asked again how MPs could make an informed decision on whether or not to accept May’s deal if they were not told of the potential repercussions of rejecting it, the spokesman said: “I’m not going to hypothesise on how parliament is going to vote or not vote. What I’m saying is, once a negotiated deal has taken place, that will be presented to parliament ahead of the meaningful vote.”
Asked what would happen to the final Treasury analysis of the impact of no deal, May’s spokesman declined repeated requests to confirm that MPs would see it before they vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/no-deal-brexit-no-10-refuses-to-say-mps-will-see-full-impact-analysis

[rob1966]

Back May's Brexit plan or risk no deal, David Lidington tells EU

Raab appeared in front of a Lords Select Committee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45344203

Read some of the comments on that, either the brexiters are trolls or they are the stupidest c*nts to ever crawl out of the abortion bucket.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

At least we will be able to trade with Africa.

Reality Check: How does Africa trade with the EU?


Prime Minister Theresa May's trip to Africa has generated vigorous debate about how easy trade is between Africa and the EU and whether the UK can keep the same arrangements or even lower barriers.

The European Union's critics sometimes invoke the presence of tariffs - effectively taxes on imported items - on African goods when they accuse it of being a protectionist club or racket.

So how much is there to this?

The relatively simple element is the EU's arrangement for a group of nations known as Least Developed Countries (LDCs.)

Of these LDCs, there are currently 33 in Africa - most of the countries on the continent. These "are low-income countries confronting severe structural impediments to sustainable development".

They have duty-free access for their goods to the EU under an initiative known as Everything but Arms (EBA).





If it's not a weapon or ammunition, and it is made or grown in one of the countries concerned, it has duty-free access to the EU. If the product is from Ethiopia, Uganda or Malawi, for example, there would be no tariffs.

There may be other barriers - such as regulations, product standards and customs documents to complete - but that also applies to goods from other countries outside Europe's single market, including the US, Japan and Canada.

None of the three countries the prime minister is visiting - South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya - are on that United Nations list of LDCs. That is probably one of the reasons she chose them. They are bigger economic players and there is more to be gained from commercial relations with them.

But all three of them do get some degree of relief from EU trade tariffs.

There is an arrangement that covers other developing countries beyond the LDCs. It's known as the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). Other rich countries, including the US and Japan operate their own GSPs.

The EU's version applies to Nigeria and Kenya but not to South Africa.

It doesn't open the tariff-free gates as wide as EBA does. The EU says it gives tariff-free access for 57% of products and reduced rates for most of the rest. But the minority of goods still subject to full tariffs are often farm produce.

Both the Everything but Arms and the Generalised System of Preferences are unilateral. The EU simply lowers or eliminates tariffs and the partner country is under no obligation to reciprocate and cut their own tariffs on imports from the EU.

But there are wider deals known as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA). These go further and also mean a country like Kenya opening its market to the EU, though not as much as the EU does.

Kenya is part of an EPA through an East African regional group. But three other countries in the group must tsign and ratify it before it comes into effect.

South Africa, together with five other countries, has another partnership. The EU says it gives fully or partly duty-free access to 98.7% of imports coming from South Africa.

So there are tariffs that affect some South African goods. And it can get very complicated. For many types of agricultural products there are quotas at zero tariffs. For others there are reduced tariffs on a certain quota and higher duties on quantities above that.

Some tariffs vary seasonally - oranges have higher tariffs when the EU crop is available.

There are tariffs imposed on specific products from some African countries. Atiku Abubakar, a former vice-president of Nigeria writing in the Daily Express, was concerned about his own country. Mr Abubakar wrote that refined sugar from Nigeria faces a tariff of more than 300% if it's exported to the EU.

The EU tariff on imports of refined white sugar - not covered by any preferential arrangement or a reduced duty quota - is 419 euros per tonne. That probably would apply to sugar from Nigeria as it does not have an EPA and is not eligible for the EU's scheme for the least developed countries.

Whether or not that tariff works out as high as the percentage figure cited by Mr Abubakar depends on the price per tonne. But it is certainly true that the EU's tariffs on sugar are seen as high.

But there is another point about the EU's tariffs. Countries that don't face EU tariffs often welcome them being applied to other countries. Dr Peter Holmes of the UK Trade Policy Observatory at Sussex University points out some African sugar producers take that view. Without the tariff they would struggle to compete against the giant of the industry, Brazil.

When Mr Abubakar writes that "if Nigeria and other African countries could export agricultural products tariff-free to Britain", the fact is that most of them already can.

Moreover Nigeria could get improved access to the EU if it accepted an EPA agreement negotiated with the EU and a group of West African nations. But President Buhari decided not to sign it, saying he wanted to protect the industries that provide jobs for Nigerians.

[TheShanklyGates]

At least we will be able to trade with Africa.

This is the sort of stuff that needs to be on the 10 o clock news rather than clips of May dancing or the latest bollocks Raab or Rees-Mogg have come out with.

[rob1966]

This is the sort of stuff that needs to be on the 10 o clock news rather than clips of May dancing or the latest bollocks Raab or Rees-Mogg have come out with.

I remember a time when it would have been - now the news has been dumbed down to fit the population.