RayC

Playing Devils Advocate for a moment and accepting your comment as correct, then 'So what?'. If the Withdrawal Agreement is ill-defined and ambiguous, why did the UK government sign it? Didn't they foresee that the EU would use to their advantage? (Please don't use the 'honour and trust' argument. They was none of that during the negotiations).

You are wrong. The Irish Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement. It's hardly a "minor side issue" as you suggest.

????That is the ultimate rhetorical question.

???? Taken a while but we finally seem to agree on something.???? Hope for us all yet. We had best quit now while we are winning

The referendum was years ago but how can you ignore the ongoing effects? The fact that the UK government wants to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement demonstrates that:Brexit' is still a 'live' issue today.

I know that I shouldn't encourage you, but I'm curious how you arrive at these assumptions (especially the bizarre nonsense about visas and the Costa de Lotta)?

That is your recollection of events. I'm sure many others would disagree with it.

You could but, presumably, you wouldn't want to cut benefits for those in genuine need (as opposed to those who might be labelled 'workshy'. I'd suggest that developing the criteria to differentiate isn't an overnight job. I'm all for improving workers' T&C but perhaps, today's economic climate isn't the best time to add to the inflationary pressures.

Then just own the shambles that you helped create instead of forever blaming Remainers and the EU. The UK government needs to take responsibility and be accountable for its' actions; something that it has almost completely neglected to do since 2016. We've been done this road so many times before.

You're welcome ????

The UK cannot fill these unskilled, relatively low-paid jobs from the domestic workforce. Besides which, I thought that one of the by-products of Brexit was meant to be the up-skilling of the workforce?

Not whining just asking Brexiters to justify your position by supplying a rational argument to support your position. After all, you did keep insisting that you knew what you were voting for, right?

Welcome, Bruno. As we are dealing in generalisations, this might be classified as a typical comment from the Brexiter camp: A statement without any supporting evidence

And that's a benefit?

Invoking Article 16 may not be illegal - justified is another matter - but it is a temporary measure. It does not negate the wider Treaty. That can only be done with the agreement of both sides. Seems like that explosion might be a damp squib.

The overall security climate may not have changed much in the last two years, but border control procedures have for Brits entering the EU. As you say, pre-Brexit passport holders were waved through, nowadays you join the scrum for third country entrants with all the accompanying palaver.

Congratulations. Just when I think that you may have reached a floor when it comes to ridiculous comments, you keep surprising me by offering something even more absurd. Taking your comment at face "value", if someone of the WW2 generation complains, perhaps they should be told to pull their socks up; those around at the time of the 'Black Death' had it harder? The relative plight of different generations is tangential. The actions of the government of the day are meant to improve the welfare of its' citizens. They should be judged on their time in office. There is no evidence (to date) to suggest that things will have improved during this government's tenure.

Sunak is a serious politician, so if he becomes PM there is a chance that he will drop this ridiculous posturing, that common sense will prevail and that the UK government starts to abide by the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and work with, rather than against, the EU to find practical solutions where there are difficulties. If the opportunistic Truss becomes PM who knows what might happen, but I fear that it won't be anything good.

I think that the word ".. about.." is superfluous.

Or a border down the Irish Sea which we have now. Whatever one might think of the DUP's politics, they were very clear about one thing. A border down the Irish Sea was unacceptable to them and, if it was implemented, they would not allow the Stormont Assembly to reconvene. Unsurprisingly, this has come to pass. All this could have been foreseen in 2019. Which begs the question, why did the UK government sign the current Withdrawal Agreement? There can only be two possible conclusions: (1) Despite the DUP warnings, the UK government did not fully understand what the Withdrawal Agreement entailed. In this case, it was incompetent. (2) The UK government had no intention of honouring the terms of the Agreement. In this case, it was (is) duplicitous. Not a very good look either way.

Are you incapable of seeing what's staring you in the face? If Brexit was done as you claim - something which is contrary to what some of your fellow Brexiters suggest - then the UK government would not be trying to rewrite the Withdrawal Agreement! There are many differences between 'Remainers' and 'Leavers', but a fundamental one is that 'Remainers' try to quantify the economic effects of withdrawing from the EU, whilst Leavers do nothing other than talk of some undefined future, nebulous, unquantified benefits.

And in the meantime, the country suffers from economic decline as a result. What did you expect? The UK is no longer a member of the EU so why should it expect to be granted the same benefits as its' members? Of course, the EU is protectionist by definition. It exists to protect the interests of its' members. What do you mean by "extreme protectionism" (as opposed to 'normal' protectionism)? Given that you are replying to my post, I assume that you consider me to be an "extremist, hardline remainer"? What differentiates me from a run of the mill remainer? " ... a major benefit in itself..." is just an admission that there is no empirical evidence to support your position. If only you hadn't added 'Brexit', we could have agreed on something.

A number of your fellow Brexiters e.g. TheHammer2021 seem to disagree with you. Without wishing to put words into his mouth, I very much doubt that he would describe himself as a "Socialist Remainer".

I don't suppose you have any evidence to support this?

Your original post was simply a statement. You offered no explanation or evidence to suggest that the rural electorate would become disenfranchised under a system of PR, nor any explanation of how the 'first past the post' system protects the rural electorate.