What's in the news?

[Alf Bentley]

32 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Lol I clearly don't understand the backstop.

 

 

 

What is the Brexit backstop?

Variously described as an insurance policy or safety net, the backstop is a device intended to ensure that there will not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even if no formal deal can be reached on trade and security arrangements.

 

It would mean that if there were no workable agreement on such matters, Northern Irelandwould stay in the customs union and much of the single market, guaranteeing a friction-free border with the Republic.

 

Both the UK and EU signed up to the basic idea in December 2017 as part of the initial Brexit deal, but there have been disagreements since on how it would work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So we need a deal on the backstop so if we can't reach other agreements then there's no hard border?

 

But we need a deal first otherwise we don't get a backstop but then some people don't want a deal and thus a backstop? Or do want a deal but no backstop? 

 

We are truly ****ed.

 

This is about it - you're getting there, mate! 

 

The other important bit is that there are 2 parts to the potential EU/UK deal:

- The Withdrawal Agreement (or "divorce deal"), which is supposed to be approved by 29th March

- The agreement on future relations/trade, which will be negotiated over several years, although there's an initial non-binding Declaration on this to accompany the divorce deal (this is vague and not a problem at this stage)

 

If the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by 29th March, we automatically leave with No Deal, unless something else has been agreed (deadline extension to July? some other deal? cancellation of Brexit?). An extension looks possible, the other outcomes unlikely (or would require an extension anyway).

 

Withdrawal Agreement is a long, binding legal doc but important elements are:

- An extension of current relationship/trade arrangements to December 2020

- The backstop, as you've described

- The divorce settlement (approx. £39bn to cover previous commitments, maybe a bit more to cover agreed extension to Dec. 2020)

- Rights of EU citizens in UK to remain here, and of UK citizens in EU to remain there

 

Logically, if the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by 29th March, this has the following consequences:

- No extension period beyond March, so all existing EU/UK agreements on trade, security & multiple other issues end immediately

- All UK trade agreements with EU and dozens of other countries worldwide end immediately, necessitating new Customs & product checks, plus tariffs, from 30th March, probably causing chaos at borders & major economic/social damage

- There will be no backstop, so pressure for a hard border in Ireland sooner rather than later (pressure on Ireland from EU, pressure on EU & UK from WTO, though this might take a while)

- International legal dispute between UK and EU over divorce settlement

- Rights of EU & UK citizens in respective countries will depend on measures adopted at national level by UK & the 27 EU countries

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No. “Even if no deal on trade and security can be reached” is the future arrangements.

We are currently negotiating a withdrawal agreement, if there is no deal on that, there is no backstop.

 

That second sentence is quite right, but what he quoted is NOT wrong - though it assumes the Withdrawal Agreement is approved.

 

If the Withdrawal Agreement is approved, but negotiations over future EU/UK relations (trade, security etc.) are unsuccessful, then the backstop would apply after Dec. 2020 or any further extension to that date.

That's what the ERG, DUP and others object to....though others (e.g. Labour) have other objections to the proposed Withdrawal Agreement.

[Foxxed]

41 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No. “Even if no deal on trade and security can be reached” is the future arrangements.

We are currently negotiating a withdrawal agreement, if there is no deal on that, there is no backstop.

This is what's incredible to me.

 

We haven't even started the actual trade and security agreements.

 

This is the pre deal to the actual deal.

 

What if this part is the EASY part of all the agreements?

 

We'll get so caught up in inertia Robinson will come along and say "**** these politicians - let's attack Nabia and start a war economy" Glory to the motherland.

 

I'm currently suffering from flu. May affect my judgement etc.

[Izzy]

@Alf Bentley - keeping Brexit simple since 2017 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Izzy said:

@Alf Bentley - keeping Brexit simple since 2017 

 

 

Simple is the one thing it isn't.

[urban.spaceman]

Well this came out of the blue. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47134033

[PloTok]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Simple is the one thing it isn't.

Well, yes and no. If one can embrace the paradox of being out of the EU with no hard border, then it's relatively simple. Well, nearly almost sort of. In as much as it's a matter of negotiation between irresistible forces and immovable objects.

 

To be fair to TM the PM, she is trying to keep it simple... in a very logical, step-by-step kind of a way. It seems she functions best in that mode. She deals with what she has on the table at any given moment and doesn't seem to (or want to?) concern herself with what might lurk ahead. In a 'we will deal with that when we get there' kind of a way.  I think this is why she seems prone to saying whatever is required to get past the current hurdle, or appease the current audience. She then seems befuddled when someone asks 'but what about x?' and goes into repeat mode. And there are seeming contradictions in her statements from one day to the next - as if she is trapped in the paradox, unable to embrace both aspects simultaneously. I feel she's ignoring the apparent logical impossibility of the situation in the hope that something/someone will come forward and save the day. 

[Foxxed]

This backstop thing is a complete mess.

 

Even if I do understand it, the different permutations remind me of fractals but a bit more nightmareish.

 

 

I still don't understand how there could not be a hard border in Northern Ireland without using being in the Common Market.

 

If there's no tariffs, no taxes and free movement of people, goods and services between the republic and northern ireland then that, to me, suggests the exact trade agreement which is called The Common Market.

 

And if one part of the UK - i.e. Northern Ireland - has free access to the EU's goods and services then it needs to apply to the rest of the UK.

 

But if we join the Common Market the skinheads with Robinson at their heaad will start marching again - Brexit Betrayal.

 

Really, if this Brexit thing works out well I will sent groveling apologies to everyone I've argued with on this forum.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Foxxed said:

Lol I clearly don't understand the backstop.

 

 

 

What is the Brexit backstop?

Variously described as an insurance policy or safety net, the backstop is a device intended to ensure that there will not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even if no formal deal can be reached on trade and security arrangements.

 

It would mean that if there were no workable agreement on such matters, Northern Irelandwould stay in the customs union and much of the single market, guaranteeing a friction-free border with the Republic.

 

Both the UK and EU signed up to the basic idea in December 2017 as part of the initial Brexit deal, but there have been disagreements since on how it would work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So we need a deal on the backstop so if we can't reach other agreements then there's no hard border?

 

But we need a deal first otherwise we don't get a backstop but then some people don't want a deal and thus a backstop? Or do want a deal but no backstop? 

 

We are truly ****ed.

Ah I see what you are talking about.

 

The backstop only becomes an option in May’s deal. If that isn’t ratified and there is no deal there is no backstop. If May’s deal is ratified, there is a transition period where the UK and EU have to try to reach an agreement on their future relationship (trade agreements, customs arrangements, etc). If no deal can be reached that’s when the backstop could come into effect.

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

though others (e.g. Labour) have other objections to the proposed Withdrawal Agreement.

I'd like to know what they are, unless it's solely some vague "worker's rights and environmental protections" with of course little detail. As far as I see it, we're in a bizarre world where the Labour Party opposes something that is its exact policy, for there is little they could change about the WA given their stated policy. But obviously not bizarre if they feel they could benefit politically if the Conservatives are blamed for all the No deal problems or are seen to be blocking Brexit with delays/revocation. Seems daft to risk no deal opposing your own policy. 

 

There are two ways currently to prevent a hard border in Ireland. One is having full access to the Single Market with additional agreements on accepting parts of the UCC or remaining in a customs union but accepting some Single Market rules. The backstop is the latter and is de facto what the future relationship will look like in the absence of technological solutions to the border becoming available. Of course May refuses to be honest about this. The Labour Party has decided upon a policy of a permanent customs union but as the backstop shows this requires accepting some single market rules to prevent any kind of border (presumably UK wide). Both policies are pretty much identical.

[The Guvnor]

The Times.

 

Angela Merkel will press Irish for compromise on high-tech solution.

She is apparently prepairing a last- minute attempt to rescue TM's Brexit deal by pressurising Dublin to abandon its insistence Irish backstop.

I think Angela is getting the paradox of the backstop and a no deal scenario.

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

I'd like to know what they are, unless it's solely some vague "worker's rights and environmental protections" with of course little detail. As far as I see it, we're in a bizarre world where the Labour Party opposes something that is its exact policy, for there is little they could change about the WA given their stated policy. But obviously not bizarre if they feel they could benefit politically if the Conservatives are blamed for all the No deal problems or are seen to be blocking Brexit with delays/revocation. Seems daft to risk no deal opposing your own policy. 

 

There are two ways currently to prevent a hard border in Ireland. One is having full access to the Single Market with additional agreements on accepting parts of the UCC or remaining in a customs union but accepting some Single Market rules. The backstop is the latter and is de facto what the future relationship will look like in the absence of technological solutions to the border becoming available. Of course May refuses to be honest about this. The Labour Party has decided upon a policy of a permanent customs union but as the backstop shows this requires accepting some single market rules to prevent any kind of border (presumably UK wide). Both policies are pretty much identical.

 

This article suggests it's mainly Corbyn who's criticising the backstop, not other Labour leaders:  https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/labour-changing-its-tune-irish-backstop

 

This bit might partly explain it: "The Labour leader does have ideological gripes with the backstop – which, among other things, includes alignment on EU state aid rules".

 

Maybe Corbyn thinks that a permanent Customs Union & compromise on SM could obviate the need for a backstop - and avoid alignment with EU state aid rules? State aid rule have been a big issue for him throughout.

 

Party politics is also a big issue for both main parties. I'm sure a parliamentary majority could be found for a deal supported by the bulk of Labour MPs (other than those who wouldn't compromise on a second referendum) and a large chunk of Tory moderates. But that's high-risk for both parties: hard for May to offer that sort of deal to Labour without splitting her own party; hard for Labour to accept without alienating a large proportion of its members and voters.

 

I wonder if Corbyn may also still be hoping to force a general election? Although most commentators seem to be discounting that prospect now, something has to give soon, surely (maybe naively, I'm still expecting something to stop No Deal)? Unless someone pulls a rabbit out of the hat in the next week, May will presumably be going back to parliament on 13th Feb with almost the same deal as last time. It seems that she's only won over a trickle of Labour backbenchers - and that most ERG types plus the DUP will continue to oppose that deal. She might not lose by as many as 230 next time, but it sounds as if she'll still lose....so what would happen with any amendments this time? There'll be more Tory Soft Brexiteers prepared to rebel next time, you'd imagine, but what sort of amendment might succeed? I presume it would be unthinkable for them to vote for a Labour amendment - or would it? Or might both parties gamble on an election? It would at least be feasible before July, unlike a referendum, though it would create massive divisions in both parties and risk public conflict.....

 

I imagine that vague statements about workers' rights and environmental protection could be inserted into the Political Declaration on Future Relations - and probably neither May nor the EU would object to that....but that would be fairly meaningless, not being legally binding. Unless Labour hopes to insert legally binding commitments to match EU regulations into the Withdrawal Agreement? Presumably the EU would be happy about that - but the Tories wouldn't be, so that seems a non-starter....

 

My head hurts!

 

[surrifox]

48 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

The Times.

 

Angela Merkel will press Irish for compromise on high-tech solution.

She is apparently prepairing a last- minute attempt to rescue TM's Brexit deal by pressurising Dublin to abandon its insistence Irish backstop.

I think Angela is getting the paradox of the backstop and a no deal scenario.

 

Its about time the EU fielded some of their 1st XI instead of leaving it all to pygmies like Tusk

[Toddybad]

5 hours ago, PloTok said:

Well, yes and no. If one can embrace the paradox of being out of the EU with no hard border, then it's relatively simple. Well, nearly almost sort of. In as much as it's a matter of negotiation between irresistible forces and immovable objects.

 

To be fair to TM the PM, she is trying to keep it simple... in a very logical, step-by-step kind of a way. It seems she functions best in that mode. She deals with what she has on the table at any given moment and doesn't seem to (or want to?) concern herself with what might lurk ahead. In a 'we will deal with that when we get there' kind of a way.  I think this is why she seems prone to saying whatever is required to get past the current hurdle, or appease the current audience. She then seems befuddled when someone asks 'but what about x?' and goes into repeat mode. And there are seeming contradictions in her statements from one day to the next - as if she is trapped in the paradox, unable to embrace both aspects simultaneously. I feel she's ignoring the apparent logical impossibility of the situation in the hope that something/someone will come forward and save the day. 

The only thing TM is doing - the only single thing - is trying to keep her fractured party together. Any normal human being would have sought cross party consensus which would have meant a customs union and soft brexit which would have waltzed through the house 18 months ago. 

 

3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I'd like to know what they are, unless it's solely some vague "worker's rights and environmental protections" with of course little detail. As far as I see it, we're in a bizarre world where the Labour Party opposes something that is its exact policy, for there is little they could change about the WA given their stated policy. But obviously not bizarre if they feel they could benefit politically if the Conservatives are blamed for all the No deal problems or are seen to be blocking Brexit with delays/revocation. Seems daft to risk no deal opposing your own policy. 

 

There are two ways currently to prevent a hard border in Ireland. One is having full access to the Single Market with additional agreements on accepting parts of the UCC or remaining in a customs union but accepting some Single Market rules. The backstop is the latter and is de facto what the future relationship will look like in the absence of technological solutions to the border becoming available. Of course May refuses to be honest about this. The Labour Party has decided upon a policy of a permanent customs union but as the backstop shows this requires accepting some single market rules to prevent any kind of border (presumably UK wide). Both policies are pretty much identical.

Ill add at the start of this that the labour position is a disgrace. Not because of what it is from a brexit standpoint, but from what it is in relation to what it's members want. 

 

As a policy in itself, a/the customs union is the most sensible policy anybody had come up with. But then Keir Starmar is one of the few politicians worth listening to on Brexit. 

 

The issue with brexit favouring (corbyn) MPs not supporting the withdrawal agreement is more that it takes us out but has kicked the can beyond that point as to what our future will actually look like. It could be Rees-Mogg or Boris as PM by then, God help us. Corbyn has been too fixated on an election that he probably wouldn't have won anyway. 

 

Labour have gotten themselves into a right mess over it. The soft brexit line was right but the Tories just about stuck together. Corbyn has been a disaster the last few weeks and months. 

 

Labour should now be all in for a second referendum. Even if they don't get it, they should never have put themselves into a position where anybody other than the tories get the blame for the brexit fallout.

 

Because if it ends up as no deal, no matter how sure the leavers are now, it won't take many days of empty supermarket shelves before the leavers are joining the crowds baying for those that led us down this path to poverty. 

Edited 6 February 2019 by Toddybad

[Milo]

6 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Well this came out of the blue. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47134033

I assume the Catholic priests must have run out of children to abuse, then?

 

Can you imagine any other organisation surviving the harbouring of paedophiles and in the this case sex-slave kidnappers and getting away with it.

 

Not only do the Catholic church not report the abuses to the authorities, they actively try to discredit the abused and hide the abusers.

 

All in the name of God, though, so I suppose it's ok.

 

 

 

 

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This article suggests it's mainly Corbyn who's criticising the backstop, not other Labour leaders:  https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/labour-changing-its-tune-irish-backstop

 

This bit might partly explain it: "The Labour leader does have ideological gripes with the backstop – which, among other things, includes alignment on EU state aid rules".

 

Maybe Corbyn thinks that a permanent Customs Union & compromise on SM could obviate the need for a backstop - and avoid alignment with EU state aid rules? State aid rule have been a big issue for him throughout.

 

Party politics is also a big issue for both main parties. I'm sure a parliamentary majority could be found for a deal supported by the bulk of Labour MPs (other than those who wouldn't compromise on a second referendum) and a large chunk of Tory moderates. But that's high-risk for both parties: hard for May to offer that sort of deal to Labour without splitting her own party; hard for Labour to accept without alienating a large proportion of its members and voters.

 

I wonder if Corbyn may also still be hoping to force a general election? Although most commentators seem to be discounting that prospect now, something has to give soon, surely (maybe naively, I'm still expecting something to stop No Deal)? Unless someone pulls a rabbit out of the hat in the next week, May will presumably be going back to parliament on 13th Feb with almost the same deal as last time. It seems that she's only won over a trickle of Labour backbenchers - and that most ERG types plus the DUP will continue to oppose that deal. She might not lose by as many as 230 next time, but it sounds as if she'll still lose....so what would happen with any amendments this time? There'll be more Tory Soft Brexiteers prepared to rebel next time, you'd imagine, but what sort of amendment might succeed? I presume it would be unthinkable for them to vote for a Labour amendment - or would it? Or might both parties gamble on an election? It would at least be feasible before July, unlike a referendum, though it would create massive divisions in both parties and risk public conflict.....

 

I imagine that vague statements about workers' rights and environmental protection could be inserted into the Political Declaration on Future Relations - and probably neither May nor the EU would object to that....but that would be fairly meaningless, not being legally binding. Unless Labour hopes to insert legally binding commitments to match EU regulations into the Withdrawal Agreement? Presumably the EU would be happy about that - but the Tories wouldn't be, so that seems a non-starter....

 

My head hurts!

 

I didn't actually know that Corbyn opposed the backstop and also doesn't understand how insurance policies work. Obviously there can't be the option for unilateral withdrawal and it's got to be there no matter what Labour's future relationship ideals look like just in case. There is no WA out there that doesn't require a backstop. Maybe he's trying to play to Labour Leavers here though or maybe he is wilfully ignorant/stupid. 

 

Labour is kidding itself if it thinks it can get an agreement without state aid rules, it's sine qua non for any kind of CU agreement. Turkey has obligations to fulfil on state aid rules (I speculate that its compliance has probably been non-existent). 

 

On the general election front, it is unclear what could happen after the next round of votes in a couple of weeks. In fact, I have no idea tbf. No deal will probably die (if it's possible for parliament to do that). But again it makes sense to me for Labour to vote the withdrawal agreement through. There is going to have to be a general election if the WA is voted through in its current form because the government will surely lose backing of the DUP. Now you might say that Labour won't want to be seen as facilitating the Conservatives' Brexit and that costing them votes but I still don't buy this argument. With Brexit confirmed and when faced with effectively a choice between Labour and Conservative, these are still going to vote Labour. I don't think there'd be a successful enough coordination towards getting them to the Lib Dems. I suppose they could abstain. Add in a disunited Conservative Party (noting there'd also be issues in the Labour Party) that could still be led into an election by May and it seems favourable to Labour to me. For example, Toddy might now not approve of Corbyn, is staunchly remain but if an election was called in this scenario, I'd presume he'd still be voting Labour.

 

46 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

As a policy in itself, a/the customs union is the most sensible policy anybody had come up with.

Can't agree with that on a technical level. Of the two technically viable solutions, single market access is far better than a customs union. But on a political level probably because of FoM, idk.

 

55 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

Labour should now be all in for a second referendum. Even if they don't get it, they should never have put themselves into a position where anybody other than the tories get the blame for the brexit fallout.

 

Well yeah politically it makes total sense to me. Rob Ford has for a while pointed out Labour voters aren't necessarily Leavers even in Leave seats so this trying to pander to both sides has been somewhat daft. Given that Remain/Leave is now such a strong cleavage, currently as strong as Left/Right it would be sensible to pitch as a Remain party. But obviously Corbyn, Milne, Murray etc are prevented from this by their own beliefs. McDonnell seems to just grasp playing the politics for a bigger end game rather than personal preference on Brexit.

[urban.spaceman]

30 minutes ago, Milo said:

I assume the Catholic priests must have run out of children to abuse, then?

 

Can you imagine any other organisation surviving the harbouring of paedophiles and in the this case sex-slave kidnappers and getting away with it.

 

Not only do the Catholic church not report the abuses to the authorities, they actively try to discredit the abused and hide the abusers.

 

All in the name of God, though, so I suppose it's ok.

 

 

 

 

What baffles me is the complete lack of attention it’s getting. 

 

The ****ing Pope just admitted that Priests have been raping Nuns and keeping them as sex slaves and there’s hardly any coverage of it. It’s nowhere on the BBC news page, about half a mile down the Daily Mail site, the Guardian covers a different story of his visit while the Independent is too concerned with ending Liam Neeson’s career by spinning the story into something it isn’t. 

 

And I still believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. If only the media had the balls to investigate its worldwide exploits, we could finally shut this organisation down for good. 

[Guest MattP]

Pertinent given the comments of Donald Tusk today claiming some Brexiteers are going to hell.

 

Of all the weird statements we have had on this that might just be the strangest of them all, that little stage managed "leave the mic on" stunt with Varadker was just as peculiar. 

 

It's squeaky bum time - let's see who can hold their nerve.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Pertinent given the comments of Donald Tusk today claiming some Brexiteers are going to hell.

 

Of all the weird statements we have had on this that might just be the strangest of them all, that little stage managed "leave the mic on" stunt with Varadker was just as peculiar. 

 

It's squeaky bum time - let's see who can hold their nerve.

The problem with this kind of generalist rhetoric is that it's too easy to wind people up into believing they're victims in a struggle for justice when you keep your comments so vague and sweeping.  Who are the remainers "screaming" at the brexiteers?  

 

I could just as easily ask when the brexiteers will stop screaming that remainers are betraying the nation, step back and ask themselves why and half the country would think I'm making a valid point...

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Toddybad said:

The only thing TM is doing - the only single thing - is trying to keep her fractured party together. Any normal human being would have sought cross party consensus which would have meant a customs union and soft brexit which would have waltzed through the house 18 months ago. 

It might have got through, it certainly wouldn't have "waltzed" through.

 

The SNP and other minors parties would be against, I'd imagine at least 100 Tories rebelling against that and you could be certain Labour would have found some way to vote against it, keep the problem ongoing and hope to force a GE.

 

If you wanted Labour to back a 2nd referendum you had your chance after Brexit by removing Corbyn and voting in Owen Smith. (Or voting Lib Dem after that in the 2017 GE)

 

Just watch that video of him that emerged yesterday from 2009, you can hear the passion in his voice about how much he hates the EU and what it is doing, it's a Thatcherite project - it was always a fantasy he'd back a second referendum.

[The Guvnor]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

It might have got through, it certainly wouldn't have "waltzed" through.

 

The SNP and other minors parties would be against, I'd imagine at least 100 Tories rebelling against that and you could be certain Labour would have found some way to vote against it, keep the problem ongoing and hope to force a GE.

 

If you wanted Labour to back a 2nd referendum you had your chance after Brexit by removing Corbyn and voting in Owen Smith. (Or voting Lib Dem after that in the 2017 GE)

 

Just watch that video of him that emerged yesterday from 2009, you can hear the passion in his voice about how much he hates the EU and what it is doing, it's a Thatcherite project - it was always a fantasy he'd back a second referendum.

That's what truly baffles me Matt,  Labour Members feeling completely let down by Corbyn with his lack of support for his memberships views on the EU. What planet are they on, it was never a secret he has no time for the EU, 

[Wymsey]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/sex-offender-rolf-harris-walks-2513689

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Donald Tusk - Adolph Hitler.

 

Hitler said Jews would go to hell, and now Tusk states Brexiteers will. Bids of a feather methinks. This man has no right to be in such a powerful position. With someone like him at the helm, we damn well need to be out of the E.U.

 

HARD BREXIT for me please.

 

[Spiritwalker]

40 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Donald Tusk - Adolph Hitler.

 

Hitler said Jews would go to hell, and now Tusk states Brexiteers will. Bids of a feather methinks. This man has no right to be in such a powerful position. With someone like him at the helm, we damn well need to be out of the E.U.

 

HARD BREXIT for me please.

 

Go to hell.

[bovril]

59 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Donald Tusk - Adolph Hitler.

 

Hitler said Jews would go to hell, and now Tusk states Brexiteers will. Bids of a feather methinks. This man has no right to be in such a powerful position. With someone like him at the helm, we damn well need to be out of the E.U.

 

HARD BREXIT for me please.

 

first they came for the Brexiteers?