Brexit!

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

An interesting take on the application of the Benn bill.I understand the wording of the letter has been prescribed but If Boris writes a letter saying something along the lines, I am doing this becsuse I am required to by law but I see no purpose in an extension and have nothing more to talk about.

What a predicament that becomes for the EU because if they then impose an extension, if that's what they did, surely that becomes pretty complicated.

 

Under that scenario, my guess is that the EU response would depend on the response at Westminster:

- If a general election (or, much less likely, a referendum) is called this month (for Nov/Dec), then I presume they'd grant an extension;

- Likewise, if a new interim govt took over from Johnson via a vote of confidence, I can imagine them granting an extension, so long as the new govt planned to call an election/referendum (or, less likely, planned to agree a deal)

- But if Johnson was going to stay as PM with no election called by 31st Oct, my guess is that they'd accept that No Deal was inevitable & reject the "request"

 

Of course, they might reject a request for an extension even if it does not come accompanied with a wording saying "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, I'm only writing because I'm obliged but don't really want an extension".

If I remember correctly, the decision needs to be unanimous, doesn't it? So, any 1 EU nation could veto an extension, in theory?

 

As Johnson seems to be planning to find some means of bypassing this legal "obligation", the anti-No Deal opposition will need to act to prevent that somehow.....which might well be what he wants, so that he can blame everyone else if we do end up extending. My guess is that the opposition will find a reliable means of blocking No Deal (given question marks over Benn Act) & then ensure that an election is called this month - to take place late November or whenever... 

[iniesta]

18 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

The Bosnians didn’t set up a border and the Serbs just went away, the Serbs went away after several UN freedom payloads. 

 

To be honest my post was extremely tongue-in-cheek, but the point is very real. Ethnic strife isn’t caused by a lack of borders, but hard borders, as my given examples show, certainly exacerbates them. Civilisation has only progressed because of a lack, or at least extreme fluidity of borders. Has social, political and economic progression benefitted from borders in centuries gone? Yes, but in the 21st Century, North, South, West & Central Europe had proven to co-exist in a proto-borderless society, with the East slowly but surely getting up to standard. 

 

It’s pretty nonsensical to use examples like Tibet as to why borderless countries wouldn’t work, seeing as they’ve faired just as well with a ‘hard’ border. Either way, without a determined supranational effort, ethnic/national suppression will always happen.

 

It’s also pretty lazy to group every under the ‘no borders’ banner as wanting to abolish all borders tomorrow, as it also encompasses those who want to see reform on how human trafficking and illegal migration is codified. I’m pretty sure even idealists wouldn’t suggest ending national borders tomorrow as it would also require significant infrastructural and economical buildup to make happen.

Do you have any evidence to back up these wild claims? 

 

Your claim regarding Serbia and the UN is nonsense. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Do you have any evidence to back up these wild claims? 

 

Your claim regarding Serbia and the UN is nonsense. 

I'd be interested in an elaboration on this post itself too, if it isn't too much trouble.

[iniesta]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd be interested in an elaboration on this post itself too, if it isn't too much trouble

Elaborate with regards to what exactly? 

 

Im interested in evidence which suggests that ethnic strife is caused by hard borders and that civilisation has progressed due to fluid borders.

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, iniesta said:

Elaborate with regards to what exactly? 

 

Im interested in evidence which suggests that ethnic strife is caused by hard borders and that civilisation has progressed due to fluid borders.

 

 

Elaboration as to the Serbian/UN situation and how it was different from how the OP described it.

 

With respect to the second sentence here I'd put forward my own thought (again) that is hard borders themselves don't directly lead to ethnic strife in of themselves, but one of the chief ideas behind them (there's Us and there's Them and of course Them can't be trusted at all) probably do.

 

We've got more than enough problems to deal with, with what the Earth can throw at us without making more among ourselves - and while folks might point to warfare and conflict as a big driver of progress that's good only for so long.

[Finnaldo]

16 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Elaborate with regards to what exactly? 

 

Im interested in evidence which suggests that ethnic strife is caused by hard borders and that civilisation has progressed due to fluid borders.

 

 

 

Because if all civilisations existed in hard borders, then all civilisation would be contained to the Indus Valley and the rest of the world would be hunter gatherers and mud huts.

 

Early civilisation in Europe was spread by the Greeks not staying in neatly defined borders in Greece, but by creating colonies across the Mediterranean, influencing Etruscan and later the Latin tribes and giving birth to Rome, which then further spread civilisation by NOT staying in the borders of Italy but expanding the length of Western and Central Europe. It was then the Germanic tribes such as the Franks and Saxons which overran the Roman Empire and Jutes which created (roughly) today’s ethnic borders and broad national cultures. It was THEN the Turks conquering Constantinople that released centuries old Greek & Roman knowledge across Europe that is one of the main factors of the Renaissance, which the Byzantines has strictly guarded and previously not let out of their borders or walls.

 

Had strict borders been implemented in the Iron Age, we’d all be speaking some bastardised post-Welsh language, probably without any computers, telephones, or advanced technology, medicine or agricultural techniques, hoping the crop doesn’t fail this year.

 

So yeah, it was a constantly fluctuation of borders and migration of cultures and ethnic groups that led to modern society as we know it today, unless you think Adam was an Englishman and England truly is God’s own land.

[Finnaldo]

In regards to how borders affect ethnic strife, look at Crimea and the Donbass in Ukraine, ethnic Russians (backed by Russia) creating a bloody civil war to secede from Ukraine.

 

Why? To be within Russia’s border.

 

The Kashmir has caused India and Pakistan to kick off. It’s led to fights, murders, lynchings, and a series of wars that caused thousands of deaths in the past all over that area.

 

Why? Both believe it should be within their borders.

 

Israel and Palestine? I don’t even really need to go into that one.

 

There’s other factors to these wars but borders are the main part of it. And that’s just current conflicts. 

 

I’m interested how you think my Serbia is nonsense, do you think that the Serbians left the Bosnians on their own because they declared they had a hard border? And that it wasn’t down to the UN reigning plenty down on them? I’m very interested as to what you think caused Serbia to back off. 

Edited 2 October 2019 by Finnaldo

[The Horse's Mouth]

5 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

An interesting take on the application of the Benn bill.I understand the wording of the letter has been prescribed but If Boris writes a letter saying something along the lines, I am doing this becsuse I am required to by law but I see no purpose in an extension and have nothing more to talk about.

What a predicament that becomes for the EU because if they then impose an extension, if that's what they did, surely that becomes pretty complicated.

EU also has a lot to think back in terms of who to back here, undermining the British Prime Minister who will likely harbour a majority in the next general election, then the negotiations could become even more bitter. Boris has continued to double down on leaving on the 31st, so he must, must have a trick up his sleeve. Could Boris technically not have to ask for an extension, if a deal with the EU was met but it couldn't get through parliament? 

[Legend_in_blue]

Quote

Michel Barnier's reaction was cautious, to put it mildly.

Two of the key words in his response: whatever replaces the backstop has to be "legally operative". In other words: not a broad plan which we can then sort out over the next couple of years.

That is something the UK government has suggested - maybe we can use a transition period to iron out the details. The EU has said from the start: "No, that's not what we agreed previously, it has to be a legally operative solution when you leave."

The chances of that happening between now and the end of October - even the middle of October at that EU summit - are just very, very slim. It's an incredibly tall order because these are technical issues, difficult issues, which take time to negotiate.

This isn't going to happen by Oct 31st.

 

If Bojo really wants this to happen, he will extend and see his "Get Brexit Done" mantra through once everything is in place.  That would be the sensible choice.

 

Of course, this is if you take what Bojo says as complete truth.  The flipside, the more obvious take on it, is that he's come up with a botched plan that he knows the EU won't accept but he'll pin the blame on them anyway when they turn around and say no.

 

 

Edited 2 October 2019 by Legend_in_blue

[The Guvnor]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Under that scenario, my guess is that the EU response would depend on the response at Westminster:

- If a general election (or, much less likely, a referendum) is called this month (for Nov/Dec), then I presume they'd grant an extension;

- Likewise, if a new interim govt took over from Johnson via a vote of confidence, I can imagine them granting an extension, so long as the new govt planned to call an election/referendum (or, less likely, planned to agree a deal)

- But if Johnson was going to stay as PM with no election called by 31st Oct, my guess is that they'd accept that No Deal was inevitable & reject the "request"

 

Of course, they might reject a request for an extension even if it does not come accompanied with a wording saying "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, I'm only writing because I'm obliged but don't really want an extension".

If I remember correctly, the decision needs to be unanimous, doesn't it? So, any 1 EU nation could veto an extension, in theory?

 

As Johnson seems to be planning to find some means of bypassing this legal "obligation", the anti-No Deal opposition will need to act to prevent that somehow.....which might well be what he wants, so that he can blame everyone else if we do end up extending. My guess is that the opposition will find a reliable means of blocking No Deal (given question marks over Benn Act) & then ensure that an election is called this month - to take place late November or whenever... 

I think your emoji sums up the current situation admirably, Interesting developments today however with the new proposals put forward by the govt regards addressing the back stop, especially as the noises from the DUP and the ERG via Steve Baker seem reluctantly positive. Whether the EU will be prepared to engage seriously remains to be seen. Varadkar I believe has made negative comments to the proposals but that is to be expected. This really is crunch time now and any deal would still have to be supported by Parliament  but you just get the feeling that maybe the tide is now turning.

Of course if Barnier says no chance in the next 24 hours then it does get really interesting as Boris is still insistent we will leave with or without a deal on the 31st , maybe his mother voting to leave isn't the only ace up his sleeve.

[st albans fox]

quick question - I have seen interviews where the ‘alternative arrangements’ are dissed because they aren’t ready now. Surely if we were to agree a deal then the ‘alternative arrangements’ don’t have to be ready until end 2020 when a free trade deal should have been worked out after the negotiating period where ‘nothing changes’.  If no free trade deal is agreed then the backstop mechanism comes into play at that time.  if we did leave on the 31st with a deal, does anything actually change in that 14 months to end 2020 (that anyone would actually notice)???

 

or is it 2021 ?? 

 

it was always going to be such a bloody mess ......

[Guest MattP]

DUP on board, the ERG on board and upto 50 Labour MP's may back the Boris deal - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-no-deal-labour-boris-johnson-caroline-flint-eu-a9099156.html

 

It's starting to look like it's got the numbers to get through parliament - over to the EU now, if you want a deal you've got one.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 border for Ireland not good enough for Boris. Let’s have 2.

 

What a horrible mess for the Irish, both halves.

[Alf Bentley]

56 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

quick question - I have seen interviews where the ‘alternative arrangements’ are dissed because they aren’t ready now. Surely if we were to agree a deal then the ‘alternative arrangements’ don’t have to be ready until end 2020 when a free trade deal should have been worked out after the negotiating period where ‘nothing changes’.  If no free trade deal is agreed then the backstop mechanism comes into play at that time.  if we did leave on the 31st with a deal, does anything actually change in that 14 months to end 2020 (that anyone would actually notice)???

 

or is it 2021 ?? 

 

it was always going to be such a bloody mess ......

 

The transition period does still seem to end Dec. 2020: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/106547/boris-johnson-slaps-down-brexit-secretary

I don't think anything noticeable changes during transition, except that we no longer have a say in EU decisions.

 

Under Johnson's proposal, the previous backstop mechanism would not apply. Instead, unless a FTA was done in 14 months (unlikely)....

- N. Ireland would leave the Customs Union with the rest of the UK & customs checks would be set up in N. Ireland, but away from the border

- N. Ireland would stay in the Single Market, but subject to approval by Stormont initially & every 4 years, effectively giving Stormont/DUP (& even Sinn Fein) a veto....quite apart from the fact that Stormont has not operated for 2 years

 

Maybe I'll be proved wrong, but most credible commentators say there's sod all chance of a FTA agreement in 14 months & that 5-7 years is more typical. So, it's likely Johnson's "alternative backstop" would come into effect.

Would the DUP really agree to N. Ireland staying in the SM with the Republic? Is there any realistic chance of Stormont starting up again? If not, is this not effectively a recipe for a back-door ultra-Hard Brexit with hard border after transition?

 

Alternative arrangements: It's true they wouldn't have to be ready until end 2020, but the EU would have to be confident (a) they'd be ready; (b) they'd be comprehensive.

No idea about (a), but let's assume a combination of non-intrusive customs checks, high-tech monitoring, warehouse inspections & trusted trader schemes is workable by then.....it would surely only work for bigger, law-abiding firms.

There are literally hundreds of border crossings & a lot of cross-border trade is done by small traders/farmers. What "alternative arrangements" would cover them....never mind those who actively took to smuggling once there were different customs regimes and product standards on different sides of the border? How could Ireland or the wider EU accept that risk?!

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

DUP on board, the ERG on board and upto 50 Labour MP's may back the Boris deal - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-no-deal-labour-boris-johnson-caroline-flint-eu-a9099156.html

 

It's starting to look like it's got the numbers to get through parliament - over to the EU now, if you want a deal you've got one.

 

That article dates back 3-4 weeks. It describes pro-Deal Labour MPs wanting a deal based on the WA plus the concessions that May offered Labour on workers' rights, environmental & consumer protections etc.

The article states that Johnson's spokesperson "poured cold water" on their idea. It doesn't refer to Boris' deal at all, never mind saying 50 Labour MPs may back it!

 

Given all that Boris has done in those 3-4 weeks, I'd have thought that few Labour pro-Deal MPs are likely to feel able to back a Boris Deal, particularly without those concessions & knowing that it would probably help him win a 5-year majority - during which he could rip up any concessions given. Doubtless a few would vote for it, but I'd be amazed if it extended beyond single figures.....which might not be enough for Boris, even if the DUP and the vast majority of the ERG stay on board....

 

I doubt it'll even get that far, though. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot see any way that the EU accepts Johnson's proposal - or that he agrees to major amendments. I think we're into the "blame game" now:

- Johnson gets ready for his toxic People v. Parliament/EU/Judges election, claiming that the lack of a deal is the fault of the unreasonable EU, Remainer parliament, establishment judges etc.

- EU "takes time to consider" his proposal & maybe suggests amendments (which he won't accept), likewise with an eye to avoiding blame for rejecting the proposals out of hand

 

I suspect this is all a sort of weird public relations dance, followed by the collapse of negotiations, Johnson somehow being forced to obey the law & request an extension (blaming others for this), a Nov/Dec election being called before 31st Oct, extension being granted, then the most toxic election ever, probable public unrest & low-level violence....& Boris hoping to win a majority on a No Deal / "Get Brexit done" platform that attracts enough Brexit Party voters to defeat a divided opposition. Hard to imagine what would happen beyond that, if he wins a majority (very possible, but not certain, I reckon).....but probably public discord/strife, economic chaos alongside an initial short splurge of public spending, then declining living standards, growing poverty & inequality and a vile, hateful atmosphere between the people of this country that would make what has happened so far look like an absolute picnic..... "Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think!"   

 

I hope I'm proved wrong, clearly.... 

[Finnaldo]

Very confusing situation this. 

 

So Boris as put his weight behind the electronic border suggesting this would eliminate the need for a hard border.

 

But the EU have said before that even between Sweden & Norway, the highest tech border in the world (and handily also an EU border for comparison) it takes a 20 minute wait at the border to get through, hence a free-flowing 'electronic border' isn't really proven to work and not in the realm of objective solutions right now.

 

So it seems either Boris has faith in viable technology making this a reality, or it's a 'Trojan Deal' that looks reasonable on the outside but is bound to be rejected by the EU so he can blame them for being unreasonable use it as ammunition in an election.

Edited 3 October 2019 by Finnaldo

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

That article dates back 3-4 weeks. It describes pro-Deal Labour MPs wanting a deal based on the WA plus the concessions that May offered Labour on workers' rights, environmental & consumer protections etc.

The article states that Johnson's spokesperson "poured cold water" on their idea. It doesn't refer to Boris' deal at all, never mind saying 50 Labour MPs may back it!

 

Given all that Boris has done in those 3-4 weeks, I'd have thought that few Labour pro-Deal MPs are likely to feel able to back a Boris Deal, particularly without those concessions & knowing that it would probably help him win a 5-year majority - during which he could rip up any concessions given. Doubtless a few would vote for it, but I'd be amazed if it extended beyond single figures.....which might not be enough for Boris, even if the DUP and the vast majority of the ERG stay on board....

 

I doubt it'll even get that far, though. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot see any way that the EU accepts Johnson's proposal - or that he agrees to major amendments. I think we're into the "blame game" now:

- Johnson gets ready for his toxic People v. Parliament/EU/Judges election, claiming that the lack of a deal is the fault of the unreasonable EU, Remainer parliament, establishment judges etc.

- EU "takes time to consider" his proposal & maybe suggests amendments (which he won't accept), likewise with an eye to avoiding blame for rejecting the proposals out of hand

 

I suspect this is all a sort of weird public relations dance, followed by the collapse of negotiations, Johnson somehow being forced to obey the law & request an extension (blaming others for this), a Nov/Dec election being called before 31st Oct, extension being granted, then the most toxic election ever, probable public unrest & low-level violence....& Boris hoping to win a majority on a No Deal / "Get Brexit done" platform that attracts enough Brexit Party voters to defeat a divided opposition. Hard to imagine what would happen beyond that, if he wins a majority (very possible, but not certain, I reckon).....but probably public discord/strife, economic chaos alongside an initial short splurge of public spending, then declining living standards, growing poverty & inequality and a vile, hateful atmosphere between the people of this country that would make what has happened so far look like an absolute picnic..... "Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think!"   

 

I hope I'm proved wrong, clearly.... 

Well that's cheered me up no end

 

Apologies for the article, I usually check those things. I do think we'll be seeing far more than single figure numbers though from labour prepared to vote for the deal - Melanie Onn on Peston said it was likely last night and Ruth Smeeth and Stephen Kinnock also welcomed the proposals, if you can bring people like that on side you should be looking at a minimum of thirty. (They still have about 15 that should be solid WHEN the deal can pass anyway, many voted against May's deal as they knew it wouldn;t pass and no point getting the shit for it at that point)

 

Of course Boris isn't going to get everything he wants, but his plan is a starting point and now it's upto the EU to see what concessions they'll make, what we can accept, what they can accept and then see if we can do something.

 

We'll see if Boris does refuse anything, only time we tell - many on here claimed he was never going to submit anything to the EU at all and chase No Deal - they were wrong about that and they might be wrong about this.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well that's cheered me up no end

 

 

You wouldn't believe it, but I'm genuinely a cheerful optimist by nature!

 

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Apologies for the article, I usually check those things. I do think we'll be seeing far more than single figure numbers though from labour prepared to vote for the deal - Melanie Onn on Peston said it was likely last night and Ruth Smeeth and Stephen Kinnock also welcomed the proposals, if you can bring people like that on side you should be looking at a minimum of thirty. (They still have about 15 that should be solid WHEN the deal can pass anyway, many voted against May's deal as they knew it wouldn;t pass and no point getting the shit for it at that point)

 

Of course Boris isn't going to get everything he wants, but his plan is a starting point and now it's upto the EU to see what concessions they'll make, what we can accept, what they can accept and then see if we can do something.

 

We'll see if Boris does refuse anything, only time we tell - many on here claimed he was never going to submit anything to the EU at all and chase No Deal - they were wrong about that and they might be wrong about this.

 

I'm sure there are quite a number of Labour MPs who'd like to vote for a deal. How many would vote for this deal, I'm dubious.....though it would certainly change the equation if the EU accepted anything like this (unlikely?).

 

Here are some direct quotes from the people you mentioned....clearly wanting a deal, but not as positive as you'd like?

https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-mps-who-want-to-vote-for-a-brexit-deal-react-to-johnsons-offer/

 

I hope that the EU do engage in negotiations, though time is now limited as the UK proposals have only been submitted about 12 days (?) before the absolute deadline & Johnson is insisting there'll be no extension, even if a deal seems possible. Preferably such negotiations would lead to a deal that parliament could approve - and, if Boris is negotiating in bad faith & just engaging in blame avoidance, then it's better PR for the EU to be seen to do the max to seek a deal.

 

I'd be astonished if the EU accepted anything like this (Verhofstadt seemed much more anti than Juncker/Barnier & the European Parliament has a veto, even if - big if - Juncker/Barnier agreed it), given the DUP SM veto & the customs proposal.

 

If Johnson is prepared to make serious concessions on this proposal of a sort to satisfy the EU and win over dozens of Labour MPs, he'd then risk losing the support of the DUP and/or ERG MPs - and seeing some of his target voters stick with the Brexit Party....

 

I never thought that he'd submit nothing to the EU, but do think he'd prefer No Deal to any deal other than one on his terms. I actually doubt that he cares much about Brexit at all, to be honest. I see him more as using the Brexit crisis as a tool with which to secure unfettered power for himself.....to what end, beyond narcissism and the sheer enjoyment of power, I don't know.

 

There are others who'd like to use Brexit to turn the UK into a corporate-friendly, deregulated offshore laissez-faire "paradise". But I doubt that Boris cares much about that. If Orwell's vision of totalitarianism was "a boot stamping on a human face forever", I imagine Johnson's vision to be him fvcking everybody and everything in the UK/world up the arse forever....

 

Sorry, I've got all pessimistic (and crude) again, haven't I? 

 

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

1 border for Ireland not good enough for Boris. Let’s have 2.

 

What a horrible mess for the Irish, both halves.

If we leave with no deal there really will be a border.  This is a compromise, and a sensible one - people can move freely, but goods will have to have either pre-registered or stop off in a customs clearance centre.  If you can explain why essentially no restrictions on people movement within the Island of Ireland should be a problem then I would welcome that explanation.  

[st albans fox]

29 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If we leave with no deal there really will be a border.  This is a compromise, and a sensible one - people can move freely, but goods will have to have either pre-registered or stop off in a customs clearance centre.  If you can explain why essentially no restrictions on people movement within the Island of Ireland should be a problem then I would welcome that explanation.  

 

Always wondered about that - European citizens can enter freely into the republic 

 

with no border they can enter freely into n Ireland (so essentially there is no European immigration restriction into n Ireland) 

 

are we now going to have passport checks between n Ireland and mainland Britain ???

 

 

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

1 border for Ireland not good enough for Boris. Let’s have 2.

 

What a horrible mess for the Irish, both halves.

Northern Ireland voted  to remain, i don't know what they're moaning about.

[yorkie1999]

26 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

Always wondered about that - European citizens can enter freely into the republic 

 

with no border they can enter freely into n Ireland (so essentially there is no European immigration restriction into n Ireland) 

 

are we now going to have passport checks between n Ireland and mainland Britain ???

 

 

Yes, but those with a British passport will get fast tracked through the electronic control and the ones without can stand there queuing like i seem to have to do every time i go abroad. 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Yes, but those with a British passport will get fast tracked through the electronic control and the ones without can stand there queuing like i seem to have to do every time i go abroad. 

there are passport checks between mainland Britain and n Ireland ?????

 

didnt realise - assumed it would be like travelling to Scotland 

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

there are passport checks between mainland Britain and n Ireland ?????

 

didnt realise - assumed it would be like travelling to Scotland 

Don't know, but there passport checks when i went to crete this year and i'm fairly sure that crete is in the EU.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

 

Always wondered about that - European citizens can enter freely into the republic 

 

with no border they can enter freely into n Ireland (so essentially there is no European immigration restriction into n Ireland) 

 

are we now going to have passport checks between n Ireland and mainland Britain ???

 

 

I'm pretty sure you already have to show ID to get from NI into GB mainland.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Northern Ireland voted  to remain, i don't know what they're moaning about.

Precisely, and now they’re faced with borders on all sides.