The run-up to the Brexit negotiations has been disastrous for the UK, writes former negotiator Steve Bullock. It has hectored and insulted the EU27’s intelligence and undermined its own credibility. The chances of securing a good deal in the time left are minimal: approaching extremely complex negotiations, Britain chose to be ‘bloody difficult’.
Being “tough” and being “difficult” are not the same thing. Being tough can work, but only if deployed sparingly at strategic points in negotiations. Being difficult for difficult’s sake never works. It simply breaks trust and creates resentment leading to a justifiable unwillingness in partners to compromise.
Successful negotiation in the EU is not, contrary to popular belief, about thumping the table and demanding you get everything you want for nothing in return. It’s also not about undermining your opposite numbers (oppos in Brussels-speak), or insulting their intelligence by making outlandish claims. Yet, in preparing for Brexit negotiations, the UK government has done all of these things with, it seems, gusto and pride.
Trust is key to a successful negotiation. Both sides must know that the other is negotiating in good faith. Both may know that walking away is an option in extremis, but openly threatening this undermines trust that a solution is being sought. Any compromises or concessions require trust and good faith.
Understanding your oppos is essential. Each has a complex set of constraints and expectations from their own side. Understanding their position allows you to identify solutions that satisfy their concerns and meet your objectives. If you have put yourself in the position that your overall line is fundamentally incompatible with that of your oppos, you have already lost.
An oppos’ issue with one of your lines may be less fundamental than it looks. You should be guiding your oppos towards being able to support, or at least not block, something as close to your preferred outcome as possible. The process is a long, complex one, and actions at any point will not be forgotten later.
Positions should be clearly prioritised, with built-in fallback positions. Everyone wants their priority to be your number one, must be got, can’t be traded priority, but they simply can’t all be. Many will have to be traded, and you should know which can be and for what.
Flexibility must be built into your position from the start. Not everything can be a red line. Oppos respect genuine red lines – they have them too. Claiming that every point is a red line though is crying wolf.
The pre-negotiation phase has been a disaster for the UK. The UK government first tried to divide the EU27, and then, when that didn’t work, set about deliberately breeding resentment and mistrust. The balance of power is such that the EU27 hold almost all the cards, but the government seems in a state of denial about this. Its Cabinet ministers hectored, smeared and threatened the very people they are asking for help and concessions from.
The EU27’s carefully drafted position papers synthesise a multitude of opening positions from 27 governments, the European Parliament, and the Commission. While these papers do not represent a final offer, they equally do not represent a first go at a vague wish list. The UK government knows this. Yet its approach has been to pretend that the EU27’s positions were mere posturing, particularly over the sequencing of negotiations (which the UK caved in on in the first hours of negotiations), citizens’ rights and the Four Freedoms. This was absurd and served to make UK look like it was not a serious negotiator.
Then came the ill-fated “No Deal Better than Bad Deal” rhetoric. This had a disastrous effect on the UK’s credibility, largely because it is demonstrably untrue. Of course the EU27 does not want the UK to walk away with no deal. It would cost them dearly, but they will deal with it if they must. The EU itself and its core principles are more important. Besides, everyone knows that no deal would cost the UK an order of magnitude more than the EU27, so this strategy served only to reduce trust.
The UK government has acted as if the EU27 countries are yet to discover the internet, and don’t have access to UK news. The EU27, though, knows the UK has backed itself into a corner on so many issues that its positions are fundamentally incompatible with the positive outcomes it has said it will get. The EU27 knows that this government will now find it politically impossible to go back with a big exit bill, or accept freedom of movement, or European Court of Justice jurisdiction over anything, no matter what it gets in return.
Ruling out these things publicly, instead of explaining and managing expectations at home, shows the UK government is either willing to lie to its people or genuinely ignorant of the realities. This weakens any sympathetic voices for the UK.
Finally, it really helps to have the arguments, facts and moral high ground on your side in negotiations. The UK has showed again and again that it has none of these. The unwillingness to guarantee citizens’ rights was bad, but the threat to bargain over security cooperation was a moment of appalling moral weakness.
The EU27’s leaders very much want a deal, but the government’s approach has made any desire to look for solutions that suit the UK evaporate. Why bother when they don’t appear to want a deal anyway? Why give concessions when the UK’s constraints are entirely of its own making?
In my view, the chances of this government getting any deal, let alone a good one, in only 21 months, are minimal. But I think it knows this. The Chancellor Philip Hammond, a lone moderate, pleaded for a transitional deal lasting up to four years. The level of complexity is too much for the UK’s Brexit negotiators, their preparations too poor, and the messaging too self-defeating.
I can therefore only conclude that this government’s plan is to walk out of negotiations, which will, of course, be a catastrophe for the UK. And all for want of a little humility, trust, honesty, organisation and understanding. But the government just couldn’t help itself, could it? The negotiators had to be bloody difficult.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE. It is based on a Twitter thread originally posted here. This was jointly published with the New Statesman and The UK in a Changing Europe.
Steve Bullock worked at the UK Representation to the EU from 2010-2014 where he negotiated several EU regulations for the UK in EU Council working groups. He has also worked for the European Commission and the Department for International Development’s Europe Department.
There was obviously never an intent by the EU27 to offer a reasonable deal. That is why they divided the talks into two phases insisting that the Uk discuss the items the EU wants in the 1st phase with only the carrot of a 2nd phase when the EU might discuss things the UK wants. The UK would be nonumentally stupid to agree any exit fee in return for a will-o-the-wisp trade deal that will never materialise.
If the author of this piece really was a UK negotiator with the EU it really illustrates how the UK arrived at such a bad deal as the existing unreformed EU turned out to be. He is advocating complete and utter surrender at every stage. The LSE Euro team are a complete disgrace to the British taxpayer that funds them. The whole team should be closed down immediately and the money wasted on them put to something of practical use.
He is explaining that an element of goodwill is necessary in order to achieve a successful outcome to negotiations. Having worked most of my life across the EU and working with every EU nationality, it is clear to me that it is always important to gain respect and goodwill before embarking on difficult negotiations. As the author states, being tough and being “bloody difficult” are two different things.
Door Knocker: What utter, delusional rubbish, The EU made CRYSTAL CLEAR from the outset that settling the bill came first, then the future nature of our economic and political relationship would follow. You appear not to have understood this but it has been repeated so many times that I have to conclude that this is deliberate on your part.
The €100Bn figure was contrived by the Financial Times and has never had any particular status. The size of any leaving bill and the extent of any ongoing financial commitments is entirely a matter for discussion, debate and negotiation. You appear entirely determined to believe anything negative about the EU’s intentions in the forthcoming negotiations whilst blithely ignoring that the shrill noises, hectoring and accusations have overwhelmingly been coming from this side of the Channel and from you and your Brextremist friends. Time to take some ownership of your actions?
You also give every indication of failing to understand reality, so let me spell it out to you. The UK voted to leave the EU and not the other way around. The EU will be continuing to pursue its own interests and should these deviate from the UK’s interests, too bad for the UK. You and your fellow travellers voted out and you now need to take ownership of the train crash you are driving us towards and you need to live with the consequences of your actions. Starting with an apology for the bright shining lies told from one end of the Vote Leave campaign would be a good start.
The crux of your statement is the word ‘reasonable’.
What you consider ‘reasonable’ is undefined but from UK gov demands it is probably complete capitulation by the EU so we keep all the advantages without any of the advantages we don’t want like free movement which is driving our economic growth. And we MUST get rid of.
I would be interested to see you justify your claim, and see your definition of ‘reasonable’.
Have you watched the evidence-based lecture by Prof. Michael Dougan of Liverpool University’s Law School?
See also https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20/eu-law-expert-responds-industrial-dishonesty-video-goes-viral/
As Paul said: You brexit you owns it. Good luck with that.
If an element of good will is necessary why does that not apply to the EU? They have plucked a completely specious €100bn exit fee demand for which there is no legal basis, and insisted EU citizens must have more rights when living in the UK than British citizens and then their political court, with the worst record of judicial activism in the western world be judge in any dispute between themselves and the UK.
There is no record of the EU ever making any reciprocal offer when ever the UK has made a ‘good will’ geatature in the past. They simply pocket the concession and restate their demands. Look at Tony Blair’s good will gesture for example in giving up half the UK budget rebate in return for a mere promise to review CAP spending in future. The latter review failed to reduce CAP spending and the good will gedsure yielded nothing. That is what will happen again unless the UK plays hard ball with the EU in these 1st phase of exit negotiations.
The reality is that this author has no idea how to conduct a negotiation, wanting to surrender all his cards immediately. 45 years of that type of. Egitiating is why the UK had such a bad deal in the EU today, paying a budget contribution equivalent to a 7% tariff to avoid actual tariffs that are only 3%. That is also why no deal is so much better than any deal that will be on offer. It means no budget contributions, no Freedom of movement and no jurisdiction for the politicians in black robes of the ECJ. And best of all the EU cannot block it.
“That is also why no deal is so much better than any deal that will be on offer. ”
How this would work in practice? No deal would mean that trade between the EU and the UK would be on WTO terms. For your interest, a recent World Bank study [http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/853811484835908129/pdf/WPS7947.pdf] suggested that if this was to happen, trade in goods with the EU would halve, export of value added would be reduced by 28% and trade in services would fall by 62%.
The study also said that in a ‘no deal’ scenario, areas such as investment, competition policy and
movements of capital would no longer be regulated and the UK would have to pay Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs to access the EU market.
I’d be interested to hear why you think no deal would be “so much better” and what impact you think this would have on the UK economy and people?
Like many Brexiteers, you’re forgetting that it is the UK that wants out. And it is the UK prime minister who wants out of the Customs Union and the Single Market. It is not a punishment to give the UK what it is asking for.
Just like the UK, the EU27 are looking to protect their interests in the negotiations. If the UK comes to the conclusion that a hard no deal Brexit is its interest, then so be it.
You brexit you owns it.
Holland here… ehr… “Tony Blair’s good will gesture for example in giving up half the UK budget rebate”
Why the hell did the UK still have a rebate anyway? We pay way more per capita than the UK does and never got a rebate. Its just totally unreasonable that the UK had a rebate in the first place – let alone thiis long, it was supposed to be a temporary measure anyway.
“That is also why no deal is so much better than any deal that will be on offer. ”
How this would work in practice? No deal would mean that suddenly trade between the EU and the UK would be on WTO terms. For your interest, a recent World Bank study [http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/853811484835908129/pdf/WPS7947.pdf] suggested that if this was to happen, trade in goods with the EU would halve, export of value added would be reduced by 28% and trade in services would fall by 62%.
The study also said that in a ‘no deal’ scenario, areas such as investment, competition policy and
movements of capital would no longer be regulated and the UK would have to pay Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs to access the EU market.
I’d be interested to hear why you think no deal would be “so much better” and what impact you think this would have on the UK economy and citizens?
‘door knocker’ makes very valid points and ones which the British public I’m absolutely sure agrees with.
It is worth pointing out that the EU was the first one to make threats, give out scare stories and of course make ludicrous demands for the so-called ‘divorce’ and so expecting the UK to just sit back and ignore them all would be pure folly!
Steve Bullock calls himself a past negotiator but what was it he negotiated? His comments are way off the mark!
From my own experience as a negotiator, you do not do what the EU has done since the Referendum if you want to gain the upper hand.
Yes the EU was disappointed and no doubt surprised that such a nation as the UK voted to leave but such is life, we all have to handle such situations and move on…. but politely!
The UK was obviously going to react similarlily and for Bullock to accuse the UK of being ‘bloody difficult’, what else did he expect?
The UK will try to negotiate a deal which will benefit the UK, obviously and the EU will try to make sure that doesn’t happen, again, obviously but somewhere in the middle there should be a compromise solution?
The outcome though is that a ‘no deal’ is more likely so it would pay to save valuable time, money and effort in curtailing negotiations here and now!The UKcould then see out the ensuing months working on trade deals with other nations and preparing for the day when it is once again free of the EU’s shackles, numerous rules and regulations and not least saving the vast amounts of money sent to Brussels which could be far better spent at home!
EU side has been consistent and transparent from the beginning. No threats have been made, unless you count stating the obvious as a threat. All the EU is saying that the UK after Brexit can’t enjoy the same benefits it had as a member.
That said, both sides should have an interest in an amenable agreement. How deep the relationship will be afterwards is mostly for the UK to decide. I think realistically the UK should aim for a transitional agreement ASAP, but again that’s the UK’s decision.
As to future trade agreements with other countries; I think the UK will soon find out that these will also come with harmonized regulation requirements and supranational arbitration mechanisms.
And the fairly non-transparent arbitration mechanisms of the TTIP deal with the US were one of the main criticisms of this trade deal. I for one prefer a proper court like the European Court of Justice.
And… good luck to the Brexiteers “harmonising” environmental regulations with a US governed by Mr Trump.
“From my own experience as a negotiator, you do not do what the EU has done since the Referendum if you want to gain the upper hand”
Erm, you don’t grasp that the EU have had the upper hand all along in this?
Are you one of those people, like David Davis, who truly believes the EU will bend over backwards to accommodate us?
Mind you, that guy is so amazingly dumb that he didn’t even grasp that Germany was in the EU, and he is representing us!
when i see the term ‘EU shackles’ i assume your allegiance is to the Daily Mail, and facts are irrelevant. The UK had numerous opt outs – and successive Governments were all for the single market. Its called co-operation.
What absolute rubbish. Door Knocker has summed it up brilliantly.
Alfred Tombs: The Uk needs to make sure it has no niave simpletons on its side of the negotiating table keen as mustard to surrender on all points for ‘goodwill’. You can be sure the EU won’t.
I spent a large part of my 15 year diplomatic career negotiating and Steve’s analysis is accurate. He provides an objective overview of the substance and combines it with the practical realities of engaging in negotiations. I would recommend that this be required reading for anyone studying international relations/political science/negotiations/law.
I considered myself to be a hard negotiator but I knew the difference between tough and difficult. One cannot enter into negotiations with the attitude that every single one of my positions is a red line especially when the reality is that you are not negotiating from a position of power. It is disappointing to see the UK behaving like a child instead of a country that has been at the forefront of international politics for so long.
agree with the article, brexit will be looked upon in 50 years as a self imposed disaster. The conservatories think we are still a superpower, we are not, we will learn soon enough and hopefully rejoin in 10-15 years
How is saying, on more than one occasion, that the UK must be punished not being threatening? How is demanding an £80+ billion pay off (with absolutely no evidence we owe any such sum) and saying that there can be no further discussion unless we agree to pay it not be threatening and difficult?
If the EU wants a trading and harmonious relationship with us after we have left then it needs to stop grandstanding for the benefit of the other member countries, it also needs to stop trying to embroil us in the complete disaster it has made of the migration issue, it has no authority to start demanding that we take any of the migrants it has invited into Europe. Yes, our departure means that we will take our funding with us and yes I can understand that will cause problems for the EU but maybe that will be an opportunity for the EU to re-evaluate its spending plans and be less enthusiastic in wasting the money it does have to spend. If the EU doesn’t want a trading and harmonious relationship with us, that’s fine as well.
Donald Tusk has stated quite clearly there will be no punishment beyond what the UK already inflicts on itself.
The “divorce bill” results from payments the UK has already committed to. The exact amount is of course subject to negotiation.
Now, if you really believe the EU is out to punish the UK, let me frame the situation in a different way: Why do you think the EU has leverage to do so? Wasn’t the whole idea that the UK is better off without the EU and that “they need us more than we need them”? If that were true, it would be impossible for the EU to punish the UK.
Daniel, your EU pom poms are having a good old rustle aren’t they. Let me put things into perspective for you.
Everything was going fine until one day, a small group of no bodies, backed by Germany through the guise of “Brussels” realised they could control the entire continent. The new super state (more resembling the USSR) they wanted to create forced lots of different countries into one POLITICAL (not economical this has nothing to do with economics) union.
The best way to do that was to destroy (literally) the borders of countries through mass immigration and population replacement (remember new labour).
Now this would all be very well and fine but the EU had a slight problem, they had forgot that the UK was an island (one of only 2 in the EU, the other one no body wants to live in) and an Island has to have some sort of immigration controls.
Now this is a big problem for Germany (sorry the EU) because how can they let the UK have immigration controls and not other Eu nations (who when asked have all voted to leave)?
So Germany (sorry the EU) decided to dbl down. The EU is brilliant at bullying countries and usurping their democracies, so it thought it would just force us and that was that.
The problem for Germany was, the British ppl didn’t like having no border controls and the immigration numbers spiralled massively. Soon Polish was the common language in areas and the British got annoyed with Romanians constantly asking them if they want their car washed at the supermarket.
So realising that the Eu meant the swamping of our little island we asked them very kindly “excuse me Germany could we have some special border controls i.e no free movement for us but maybe a 3rd way”?
Of course the EU said “NON” which then signalled to us that we need to leave as it become apparent that Germany’s (sorry EU) min aim was political control.
So next time you blabber on about how gracious and giving the EU are, just remember, it was the EU’s hunger for power and control over the continent that started and lead to all of this.
We could be trading nations in a trading block but that wont give the power of 27 nations to Germany will it 🙂
So please drop the gracious EU bs,
And lastly just to help this all go down easily, where do you think most of the world still wants to come to? The UK 🙂 Yes they still think the pavements are paved with gold.
How many ppl do you see saying “I want to live in France, Germany or Poland? no one. They all want to come here.
The Eu should have realised that we are at a disadvantage because of this and acted accordingly, they didnt.
So to summarise
1) we’re an Island the continent is huge, special immigration exemptions should have been granted to the UK from day one. The EU not doing this, shot them in the foot and us.
2) Ppl still want to live in the UK above any other Eu nation. The Eu should have considered this and given us special exemption.
They did neither and here you are telling us how its all our fault lol
You’re an EU sycophant, nothing more, nothing less.
Carl said…”Another load of uninformed opinion, therefore worthless”
If I have to choose between your uninformed opinion and the evidence presented by Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University’s Law School in https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1293361974024537/
…the evidence wins hands down every time.
Nige (who follows the evidence, not the uninformed opinions of Dunning-Kruger afflicted people who think that they know it all, but actually know sweet-F/A)
Daniel – Then Donald Tusk has suddenly experienced his own personal Damascene moment, which, of course, I do not believe for a moment.
I use the word “punish”, which is the word consistently bandied about by the EU in relation to the UK and any future trade deals, to highlight the double standards and hypocrisy contained within this article and some of the subsequent comments on here.
There is no obligation, legal or moral, on behalf of the UK to make any sort of severance payment on leaving the EU.
Suddenly experienced? If I remember correctly, he said that on the day the EU received the Article 50 notification letter. The same view has also been reiterated over and over by other politicians from the EU27 and member countries.
The main theme is simply that the UK cannot be better off out than in. You may read that as vindictive, but from the EU27’s point of view it’s just a statement of fact as they believe membership to be advantageous.
As to the “divorce bill”, actually there are legal obligations. It’s a complex matter though. But if the UK decides to just crash out without a deal and no payment, the matter would probably continue to be litigated at the WTO level.
of course, Britain has to make severance payments that includes paying the MEP pensions to self-indulgent idiots like Nigel Farage
This is a negotiation between the sovereign, elected representatives of a state, and appointed technocrats. British politics is in disarray. Technocrats on the other hand can sit tight and insist, as per Margaret Thatcher, that ‘There Is No Alternative’ (to the EU). They are used to ignoring or overriding the expressed popular will.
Many academics have given the EU a free pass. I think that some more balance, and a recognition that one side is subject to (for once) a bit of popular democracy, and the other side is not, would be in order. After all, if Europe has an ideal worth defending, it is democracy.
Daniel Elstner – The same view has not been reiterated over and over by other politicians from other member countries, a number of them have consistently used words such as punished. I understand that the theme is that we “cannot be better off out than in” but lets not pretend that that is because they believe membership is advantageous. The reality is, that if we were to strike a future trade deal exactly like the one we currently have, then other countries would follow us out of the door, to rid themselves of all the federalist baggage they are currently subject to.
As for money the EU says we owe, they have given no indication what the amount is or why they believe we owe it and until they do, I hope our negotiators refuse to discuss it.
It would do the EU, and some of the EU apologists on here, well to remember that we are not entering these negotiations as supplicants, we are equal partners and the EU does not get to start dictating what “must” be agreed before anything else can be discussed. I appreciate that the EU is worried that our departure will result in a domino effect and that they are angry at the loss of income from out contributions, but they need to stop behaving like sulky children and realise that they have far greater issues to worry about, such as the chaos they have created by not dealing with the migrant crisis, which poses a much greater threat to the EUs political and economic stability.
You may not believe it, but they do indeed believe that membership is advantageous. And the EU has every right to protect its political project. You may not agree with their goals, but please do understand that a majority in the EU27 does agree with those goals. The UK has every right to leave the club, but please don’t spin it as “punishment” if it then cannot enjoy the same benefits as before.
From the point of view of the EU27, it is the UK that’s behaving like a sulky child.
I’m German by the way, living in Berlin, and I really don’t experience the migrant crisis “chaos” you are talking about. There have been problems, sure, but it is not in any way a “threat to the EU’s stability”. I’m constantly surprised that right-wingers in the US and UK are so concerned about Germany’s future — I can assure you we are doing fine, thanks.
I’m in the UK for years but originate from Holland and as such keep close ties with what’s going on over there too.. That ‘migrant crisis’ in Germany actually extends to neighbouring countries such as Holland too. And it’s not seen as a crisis at all they just managed it. In fact they voted massively pro-EU in their general elections (we were supposed to be the first a ones after Brexit to Nexit according a the British tabloids remember?) and despite close hustirical links with the UK they now tend to think, like the Germans and many others, that the UK has become delusional and self-harming. No sympathy for the UK at all over there.
Daniel Estner – You’re right, I don’t believe it.
“If the author of this piece really was a UK negotiator with the EU it really illustrates how the UK arrived at such a bad deal as the existing unreformed EU turned out to be.”
Evidence? Ah, so there is none. This is just proof by repeated assertion.
How long before you claim that the EU only accepts child immigrants in order to ear them?
This government came to power on the basis lies and deceit in the EU referendum by the right wing xenophobic Tory politicians. So it got into their psyche that by adopting tactics of lies, blackmail, bully and bluster, they can cower the EU-27 into submission and get ‘the cake and eat it at the same time’. These British xenophobic politicians were so convinced that they can stream roll EU-27 – the ‘Great Britain’ ruled the waves of seven seas and this Europe could not possibly stand in their way. That’s what the Boris Johnson, Fox and Nigel Farage had been saying, ‘Future is bright’. These are totally deranged people destroying the whole country.
I wondered when someone would resort to describing those in favour of Brexit as liars, xenophobes, bully’s and living in the days of empire.
Congratulations, you won hands down with your tired old rant.
Dr. A Rahman is correct.
Arron Banks boasted about using Edward Bernays-style manipulation of the masses in https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/leave-donor-plans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage
“It was taking an American-style media approach,” said Banks. “What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”
Connecting with people emotionally is Propaganda 101. Watch http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d29tf_the-century-of-the-self-part-1-of-4-happiness-machines_school and learn.
America has an orange man-child for POTUS and we have Brexit. :-/
Hey Brexiteers! How about no opinion (= worthless) and some actual evidence to support your case?
“Dishonesty on an industrial scale” means “Being a lying liar who lies about everything”.
That’s you Karl, Door knocker, Brexiteer, UKIP, Leave.EU, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove & other Brexit supporters who Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University’s Law School is referring to.
Nige (who voted Remain, ‘cos I’m not a selfish dishonest Daily Mail/Express/Sun-reading eejit)
the whole brexit is self-harming behaviour
I am from Singapore, living here for nearly 30 years.
Well done Britain for having the gut to leave the EU and decide to become an independent, self governing nation!
Change is hard at first, messy in the middle but gorgeous at the end!
The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word ‘crisis.’ One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger–but recognize the opportunity.”
― John F. Kennedy
I am from Singapore, living here nearly 30 years!
Well done Britain for having the gut to leave EU to become an independent, self governing nation! I am excited about the new opportunity that it brings.
“The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word ‘crisis.’ One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger–but recognize the opportunity.”
Nigel Kinbrum –
“Nige (who voted Remain, ‘cos I’m not a selfish dishonest Daily Mail/Express/Sun-reading eejit”
You may not read the Mail / Express / Sun but I have no doubt you are a lot of other things, hyperbolic?, possibly a Libdem supporter, or, even worse, a Labour supporter?
Karl said…”More unsupported opinion, therefore worthless.”
This period in history will have future generations disavowing their British heritage, so embarrassing it has become.
From the ear-fingering simpletons ignoring logic and facts to the war-drum-beating immigrant haters, this utter idiocy has done terminal damage to Brand UK. Thank goodness Scotland’s parliament voted to remain in the EU; at least we don’t all appear to be suffering from lead poisoning.