EU exit - So folks what are you all thinking?

First topic message reminder :

Just curious to know what you all think and what way you will be voting.

Will it have an affect on rugby (from point of view of bringing in non-British players, coaches for example).
Will sterling devalue so that it will be impossible for English clubs to compete with French Euro clubs
What about Scotland? Will this push them out of the UK?
How about Ulster fans - are you looking forward to the reinstallation of the Border?

You need to re read the first post for sin then soul as it was about rugby hencenmy question to you. Your point is that you think control of immigration isnt racist. I believe it is. There is no question I havent responded to there is a question of mine your havent answered. This is a how will Brexit affect rugby thread not a general brexit thread. Answer the question.

You're going to have explain why it's racist.

I'm able to read and have read the OP, it simply is not Rugby specific, are you always like this when your opinions are highlighted to be garbage?

So I have to answer why a large section of people are racist and want to see less immigration? Ita societal driven by false narrative of some sections of the media. Its directed towards people with accents or having the temerity of speaking languages other than english. It's extremely rare to get these views towards australians or Americans and yet hate crimes towards british muslims shoots up with the go back to where you came from brigade up in arms.
Arguments on the economic benefits of immigration have been dispelled. Arguments of driving down wages dont hold as we see a larger percentage impact in germany without the impact on wages.
So now you're avoiding the rugby question and not acknowledging this thread is rugby related despite the questions posed from a rugby perspective and it sitting under the rugby section of the forum. If you dont want to talk the impact of rugby that's fine but that's my focus on the thread as that's what the thread focuses on.

If you dont respond to the question I'll just leave this as my last response to you.

Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on the services - I just don't see where the racism is in that. As I said before, protectionism and selfishness, maybe. Not not racial hatred. They are not singling our race here.

If the doctors surgery in the village next to mine closed, and all of the patients were then being taken on my doctors leading to double the waiting time, etc. then it wouldn't be racist for me to object and to want to keep those patients out and keep them at services in their own village.

I'm not really interested in the rugby perspective at the moment and have made no inclination to that end.

So again not answering the question but posting a load of inane nonsense about nothing.

Because it's based on falsehoods Oracle. Touched upon that in the post above.

Ah ok. You just want to derail the thread soul.

The only one detailing is you with your inability to explain anything instead repeating headlines you've seen on social media.

Its news to me that an increasing population places no strain on public services.

The Oracle wrote:Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on the services - I just don't see where the racism is in that.    As I said before, protectionism and selfishness, maybe.  Not not racial hatred.  They are not singling our race here.

If the doctors surgery in the village next to mine closed, and all of the patients were then being taken on my doctors leading to double the waiting time, etc. then it wouldn't be racist for me to object and to want to keep those patients out and keep them at services in their own village.  

All it is doing is generalizing rather than debating specifically. Ergo some racist people becomes all people are racist.

*sigh
Immigration rules were in place, just not always implemented.
Immigration is still going to happen. Its just the people coming in won't integrate as easily and seamlessly as all those young Europeans.

Ah excellent soul. As you're not derailing the thread can you say what the worst impact brexit will have on rugby in your opinion?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah excellent soul. As you're not derailing the thread can you say what the worst impact brexit will have on rugby in your opinion?

French sheep not being able to go to games at Twickers.

having an immigration policy is not racist if all countries have one.

therefore, logically, no immigration policy can be racist.

7.5 you are so deluded and clearly angry about brexit that you are trying to spam and wind people up here.

your crap generalisations about "most" brexit voting people being racist, and "large numbers" etc is embarrassing.

i want fewer eastern european economic migrants and more english speaking brown and black high skilled migrants from asia/africa who will stay and contribute and integrate.

according to you that's racist.

muppet.

Course quins of course. Not all brexiters are racist. All the racists are brexiters.
Soul couldnt answer: how about you quins? What's the worst effect on rugby that brexit will have.

quinsforever wrote:
i want fewer eastern european economic migrants and more english speaking brown and black high skilled migrants from asia/africa who will stay and contribute and integrate.

according to you that's racist.

muppet.

You clearly are generalizing eastern Europeans as low skilled migrants, who don't speak English, integrate or contribute. I don't see how you could get more racist?

Leicester Tigers have signed Georgia international Shalva Mamukashvili for next season. Now that UK has control of it's own borders and can reject entry for 'eastern european' who won't 'stay and contribute' should this signing be rejected?

Of course he's going to contribute. He'll pay a heft tax amount to the treasury. Plus he'll be promoting sport and, hopefully, being a good role model to millions of youngsters.

The Oracle wrote:Of course he's going to contribute.  He'll pay a heft tax amount to the treasury.  Plus he'll be promoting sport and, hopefully, being a good role model to millions of youngsters.    

Just like Joe Marler

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
i want fewer eastern european economic migrants and more english speaking brown and black high skilled migrants from asia/africa who will stay and contribute and integrate.

according to you that's racist.

muppet.

You clearly are generalizing eastern Europeans as low skilled migrants, who don't speak English, integrate or contribute. I don't see how you could get more racist?    

well you clearly havent understood the meaning of economic migrants.

it's all about the economy, ******

'person who travels from one country or area to another in order to improve their standard of living.' So all rugby players moving are economic migrants you could say. Is that the impact of brexit on rugby?

Plus.  Don't 'unskilled', economic migrants willingly work for the barest minimum wage?  Isn't that at least some of the clouded argument informing the attitude of those that say numbers shouldn't be limited or controlled - and accuse those who would seek such tight controls as 'racist'?

Cheap labour - to help businesses (big or small) - someone's gotta do the menial work - floor sweepers and toilet cleaners and fruit pickers and pizza deliverers are needed to service the plush well paid, super educated high skilled folks that live in the swanky city apartments or big country houses.

It might be a stretch to call that a version of racism too, as I'm sure the well shod citizens of the Western world don't rightly care what Nationality or colour the toilet cleaner is; - but it's a cheap regard for humanity that says toilet cleaning is a low skilled job and therefore people who do it should be happy with the lowest wages - to keep product and service costs down, so that well paid citizens don't have to spend too much on their coffee, fashion, car and homely trinkets.

The Oracle wrote:Of course he's going to contribute.  He'll pay a heft tax amount to the treasury.  Plus he'll be promoting sport and, hopefully, being a good role model to millions of youngsters.    

I have no problem with him coming to the country but the paying his taxes argument is obviously fallacious.

Leicester have a salary budget which they can spend on homegrown or imported players. Roughly the same amount of tax will be paid whether Leicester employ an import or a homegrown player. Given that players who come here during their short playing careers tend save for the future it could be argued that the treasury would be better off with a UK player who remained in the UK and kept their capital here rather than a import who leaves with their cash in a few years.

In any event Rugby players coming here will all qualify under any potential immigration system so Brexit will not make a jot of difference.

Well brexit is going well isn't it. " project fear" is all coming true, the financial hit is huge and irrevesible, scots independence is withing reach at last.

financial hit from brexit is zero.

financial hit from covid, and therefore the uk's excellent financial services industry now working mostly from home, is devastating.

gyms, restaurants, bars, anything that previously serviced the "City", they are gone.

The financial hit from brexit is of course zero because you haven’t left yet. The sooner you do the better for all of us

We have left and so has billions of pounds worth of buisness to the EU. all that finacial services that keep the UK afloat plus the billions spent on half hearted preparations for customs boarders - 50 000 new customs officers - thats 50 million a week cost alone!

Well you have half left in that the trading conditions are still under the EU rules. Another couple of months and it’s chlorinated chuck chuck.

The Oracle wrote:Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on the services - I just don't see where the racism is in that.    As I said before, protectionism and selfishness, maybe.  Not not racial hatred.  They are not singling our race here.

If the doctors surgery in the village next to mine closed, and all of the patients were then being taken on my doctors leading to double the waiting time, etc. then it wouldn't be racist for me to object and to want to keep those patients out and keep them at services in their own village.  

This is one of many pro brexit claims that has been debunked over the last 4 & 1/2 years. The racism is in continually using false statements that paint foreigners as a problem, as a justification for wanting brexit.

Now, you may not be a racist, and I'm not calling you one, it's quite possible you are simply ignorant. But if your justification for wanting to leave the EU is to use false statements about foreigners after 4 & 1/2 years of being told they're not true, then you are one or the other. I don't know you, so again I reiterate I won't be making a judgement on which one you are.

"Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on services" simply is not true. Immigrants are net contributors to our economy. That means they contribute more to the funding of those services than they cost in their use of them. This is not up for debate, it's an objective fact.

Of course, you are quite free to say what you want in reply to that statement of fact, but it won't change reality and will only demonstrate how you fall into one of the two groups I listed above. You may choose not to directly refute the fact, instead, deflect by claiming that you have not heard of your statement being debunked. But over the last 4 & 1/2 years, as reality kicks in and claims by brexiters have been shown to be false with things not happening in the way in which brexiters said that they would, leavers have continually had a common defence. "Well I never believed that anyway. I knew what I was voting for, 'remoaners' have done nothing but tell me that claim was false, so of course I knew". After 4 & 1/2 years of insisting that every leave claim that hasn't materialised does not show leavers to be uninformed or misled, because they knew what the facts were thanks to the remain side, it's rather a thin defence to say now "well I didn't know that reason I keep giving isn't true".

Reality is proving, and will continue to prove to be inescapable. In a few months leavers are going to be looking for someone to blame. They have two rational choices. Those in power for the last 10 years, or foreigners. If the conservatives are re-elected we will know who they chose.

cascough wrote:

"Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on services" simply is not true. Immigrants are net contributors to our economy. That means they contribute more to the funding of those services than they cost in their use of them. This is not up for debate, it's an objective fact.

When we talk about net contributors does that include the top 1%?

It's an often repeated statement that ultimately holds little truth.

Soul Requiem wrote:

cascough wrote:

"Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on services" simply is not true. Immigrants are net contributors to our economy. That means they contribute more to the funding of those services than they cost in their use of them. This is not up for debate, it's an objective fact.

When we talk about net contributors does that include the top 1%?

It's an often repeated statement that ultimately holds little truth.

Which bit isn't true? The immigrants not being net contributors?

Of course there are useless feckers everywhere, and ones who come from a different country will be more visible, but the average immigrant is going to be someone with the balls to get up and go to a strange environment to work, and will also be typically younger than the average for our population (and therefore less likely to be calling on our health service, an institution that is highly dependent on immigrant staff).

And always remember there was nothing stopping us kicking out unemployed immigrants in the past.

Do you hear that clucking noise Brexiters? That's the sound of the chickens coming home to roost......

There will be a border in the Irish Sea "over my dead body" Boris Johnson 13 August 2020
UK agrees to border in Irish Sea and EU Customs office in Northern Ireland - 8 December 2020.

And when it comes down to it, all they have left is immigration. As known in June 2016

cascough wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on the services - I just don't see where the racism is in that.    As I said before, protectionism and selfishness, maybe.  Not not racial hatred.  They are not singling our race here.

If the doctors surgery in the village next to mine closed, and all of the patients were then being taken on my doctors leading to double the waiting time, etc. then it wouldn't be racist for me to object and to want to keep those patients out and keep them at services in their own village.  

This is one of many pro brexit claims that has been debunked over the last 4 & 1/2 years. The racism is in continually using false statements that paint foreigners as a problem, as a justification for wanting brexit.

Now, you may not be a racist, and I'm not calling you one, it's quite possible you are simply ignorant. But if your justification for wanting to leave the EU is to use false statements about foreigners after 4 & 1/2 years of being told they're not true, then you are one or the other. I don't know you, so again I reiterate I won't be making a judgement on which one you are.

"Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on services" simply is not true. Immigrants are net contributors to our economy. That means they contribute more to the funding of those services than they cost in their use of them. This is not up for debate, it's an objective fact.

Of course, you are quite free to say what you want in reply to that statement of fact, but it won't change reality and will only demonstrate how you fall into one of the two groups I listed above. You may choose not to directly refute the fact, instead, deflect by claiming that you have not heard of your statement being debunked. But over the last 4 & 1/2 years, as reality kicks in and claims by brexiters have been shown to be false with things not happening in the way in which brexiters said that they would, leavers have continually had a common defence. "Well I never believed that anyway. I knew what I was voting for, 'remoaners' have done nothing but tell me that claim was false, so of course I knew". After 4 & 1/2 years of insisting that every leave claim that hasn't materialised does not show leavers to be uninformed or misled, because they knew what the facts were thanks to the remain side, it's rather a thin defence to say now "well I didn't know that reason I keep giving isn't true".

Reality is proving, and will continue to prove to be inescapable. In a few months leavers are going to be looking for someone to blame. They have two rational choices. Those in power for the last 10 years, or foreigners. If the conservatives are re-elected we will know who they chose.

You’ve taken my post out of context. My original post was on the previous page where I was describing my parents voting leave.  And the discussion then followed about whether worries about the squeeze on services was inherently racist or could be separated out from racism.  My point being that people can still worry about over crowding and pressure on services even if it’s from people of the same race. My parents reason for voting leave was driven by them getting older and healthcare being of growing importance to them and their experience of growing waiting times and needing to go private to get treated recently (and that’s my mum who was a nurse for over 30 years and my dad a copper for the same time, so not something they did lightly).  You can be worried about that AND not be racist at the same time.  Their worries would still be the same if the ‘influx’ (whether perceived or real) was white people from Iceland.  It’s possible to have these fears and it not be racially driven, was all I was saying.  But people seem to want to say that ANY worry about resources and services is inherently racist.  I disagree that it’s that way 100% of the time

I am very much a Remainer by the way, although I have to admit I’m wavering a bit at the moment

Wanting your country to take in less people so that there is less pressure on the services

This is simply an incorrect supposition. EU immigrants contribute more tax and use services less than UK nationals. thus a government could improve services off this. the fact services are worse is a political decision with nothing to do with immigration

NHS relys on immigrant labour so without this the services will get worse

I agree with the you there TJ. I never said any different. Yes with the extra cash from migrants the government could spend more on services to account for the increased demand. But it doesn’t. In fact we seem to have cut services under the banner of ‘austerity’. So that doesn’t change or help people’s worries.

Oracle, I have no idea how anyone could be wavering at this stage given the sh1t show that the negotiations have been and what we have coming over the horizon in two weeks time if they are crazy enough to actually go for no deal

The way the press have used xenophobic tropes about the French and Germans this weekend makes me think they're going to stoke this up to blame "foreigners" for the entirely self made mess, and I hope it isn't EU citizens that start to suffer the backlash when supermarket shelves are emptied

Can't wait for Brexit .

BamBam wrote:Oracle, I have no idea how anyone could be wavering at this stage given the sh1t show that the negotiations have been and what we have coming over the horizon in two weeks time if they are crazy enough to actually go for no deal

The way the press have used xenophobic tropes about the French and Germans this weekend makes me think they're going to stoke this up to blame "foreigners" for the entirely self made mess, and I hope it isn't EU citizens that start to suffer the backlash when supermarket shelves are emptied

People who say this are usually lying and a quick flick through previous posts or diving into their reasons usually reveals this pretty quickly.

Lots of talk and backtracking to try and justify a position in the aftermath, but the simple fact remains, if people *still* think the solution to stress on services is to stop foreigners using them, then that's ignorant or racist. Ie they don't know they're not the problem = ignorant, or they do know, but persist in blaming them = racist. For the mods, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. The logic is there and Oracle or anyone else can continue to talk themselves into whichever camp they like, but it is objective truth that foreigners do not put strain on our services.

All this time after the country voted for Brexit I cannot in my worst imagination believe there is no plan and no rules negotiated and agreed. Yes, both sides are playing hardball, but I think many in the the EU as well as many of us believe the PM does not want a deal and are just stringing things along. I think there have to be rules especially since Europe will always be a a critical trade partner. For me, no deal is incompetent.

doctor_grey wrote:All this time after the country voted for Brexit I cannot in my worst imagination believe there is no plan and no rules negotiated and agreed.  Yes, both sides are playing hardball, but I think many in the the EU as well as many of us believe the PM does not want a deal and are just stringing things along.  I think there have to be rules especially since Europe will always be a a critical trade partner.  For me, no deal is incompetent.    

Well no deal would be a 'million to one chance' and ' a failure of statecraft'. I wonder who said that?

Still some indications that a deal has been done. It will obviously be 'poopie' but we don't know how bad yet.

In the meantime unicef is looking to feed kids in this country for the first time ever, whilst the honorable member for the 18th century claims they are at fault for doing so.

cascough wrote:

BamBam wrote:Oracle, I have no idea how anyone could be wavering at this stage given the sh1t show that the negotiations have been and what we have coming over the horizon in two weeks time if they are crazy enough to actually go for no deal

The way the press have used xenophobic tropes about the French and Germans this weekend makes me think they're going to stoke this up to blame "foreigners" for the entirely self made mess, and I hope it isn't EU citizens that start to suffer the backlash when supermarket shelves are emptied

People who say this are usually lying and a quick flick through previous posts or diving into their reasons usually reveals this pretty quickly.

Lots of talk and backtracking to try and justify a position in the aftermath, but the simple fact remains, if people *still* think the solution to stress on services is to stop foreigners using them, then that's ignorant or racist. Ie they don't know they're not the problem = ignorant, or they do know, but persist in blaming them = racist. For the mods, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. The logic is there and Oracle or anyone else can continue to talk themselves into whichever camp they like, but it is objective truth that foreigners do not put strain on our services.

Eh?!  I’m still very much pro remain.  I want to be part of the EU.  I believe in the benefits of membership.  I love the concept of free movement of people.  That’s why I voted remain.  However, the bit I’m wavering on is whether no deal would be better, in terms of trade, than being tied in on poor terms.  Brexit is happening and, unfortunately, we cannot stop it.  So my thoughts are now about what is best for the country in the long term outside of the EU.  But I’m open minded, which is why I’m wavering.  I’m an academic, by trade, so quite willing to listen to both sides of all arguments and not just blindly follow what other people say.  Not sure why you seem to have made your mind up that I’m some sort of racist.  But whatever floats you boat really.  You seem to have picked up a conversation from back in March where I was discussing a philosophical point rather than setting my stall out.

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:All this time after the country voted for Brexit I cannot in my worst imagination believe there is no plan and no rules negotiated and agreed.  Yes, both sides are playing hardball, but I think many in the the EU as well as many of us believe the PM does not want a deal and are just stringing things along.  I think there have to be rules especially since Europe will always be a a critical trade partner.  For me, no deal is incompetent.    

Well no deal would be  a 'million to one chance' and ' a failure of statecraft'. I wonder who said that?

Still some indications that a deal has been done. It will obviously be 'poopie' but we don't know how bad yet.

In the meantime unicef is looking to feed kids in this country for the first time ever, whilst the honorable member for the 18th century claims they are at fault for doing so.

Funny comment about the 'failure of statecraft'.  Unfortunately that's where I think (but hope not) we are going.  If that is the case, you think the Tories will hold him accountable for his 'failure' and push him out?

doctor_grey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:All this time after the country voted for Brexit I cannot in my worst imagination believe there is no plan and no rules negotiated and agreed.  Yes, both sides are playing hardball, but I think many in the the EU as well as many of us believe the PM does not want a deal and are just stringing things along.  I think there have to be rules especially since Europe will always be a a critical trade partner.  For me, no deal is incompetent.    

Well no deal would be  a 'million to one chance' and ' a failure of statecraft'. I wonder who said that?

Still some indications that a deal has been done. It will obviously be 'poopie' but we don't know how bad yet.

In the meantime unicef is looking to feed kids in this country for the first time ever, whilst the honorable member for the 18th century claims they are at fault for doing so.

Funny comment about the 'failure of statecraft'.  Unfortunately that's where I think (but hope not) we are going.  If that is the case, you think the Tories will hold him accountable for his 'failure' and push him out?

There are rumors that his exit has been planned for some time, regardless of what the shaven honey monster actually wants. That leads to the question about who will take over. I suspect that Gove has designs on being PM and I don't think he could get in there in a general election, so his best hope would be doing what Johnson did to May.

There would be competition of course. Hunt would be a possibility, as would Sunak. I am sure the more insane would like more discipin(!) from Patel.

Crap times ahead. The current version of the Conservative party is a terrible thing that seems to be UKIP in disguise, and using language that would not look out of place if it was on material produced by the National Front. As for the opposition Labour is still bogged down with the legacy of Corbyn and his fellow travellers. I do rate Starmer and he has some good people behind him but he has an enormous task. He's also boring, which is a good thing, but out of step of what some people think politicians should be.

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:All this time after the country voted for Brexit I cannot in my worst imagination believe there is no plan and no rules negotiated and agreed.  Yes, both sides are playing hardball, but I think many in the the EU as well as many of us believe the PM does not want a deal and are just stringing things along.  I think there have to be rules especially since Europe will always be a a critical trade partner.  For me, no deal is incompetent.    

Well no deal would be  a 'million to one chance' and ' a failure of statecraft'. I wonder who said that?

Still some indications that a deal has been done. It will obviously be 'poopie' but we don't know how bad yet.

In the meantime unicef is looking to feed kids in this country for the first time ever, whilst the honorable member for the 18th century claims they are at fault for doing so.

Funny comment about the 'failure of statecraft'.  Unfortunately that's where I think (but hope not) we are going.  If that is the case, you think the Tories will hold him accountable for his 'failure' and push him out?

There are rumors that his exit has been planned for some time, regardless of what the shaven honey monster actually wants. That leads to the question about who will take over. I suspect that Gove has designs on being PM and I don't think he could get in there in a general election, so his best hope would be doing what Johnson did to May.

There would be competition of course. Hunt would be a possibility, as would Sunak. I am sure the more insane would like more discipin(!) from Patel.

Crap times ahead. The current version of the Conservative party is a terrible thing that seems to be UKIP in disguise, and using language that would not look out of place if it was on material produced by the National Front. As for the opposition Labour is still bogged down with the legacy of Corbyn and his fellow travellers. I do rate Starmer and he has some good people behind him but he has an enormous task. He's also boring, which is a good thing, but out of step of what some people think politicians should be.

Well said, and I think your assessment of likely replacements for the PM are pretty much right on the money.  Gove might not be electable by his own family.    The absolute last thing the UK needs (or frankly the continental EU and Ireland) is an economic slowdown due to a failure of the most important UK negotiations in the last 50 years - on top of Covid-19.   With an incoming US administration antagonistic towards the PM, though not UK, there is no immediate hope for trade agreements there.  

At least we have the Rugby.........

Now France is not letting most UK freight in through their borders. This is going to cost us a lot of money, and hopefully not, jobs. This is really getting out of control. Shame.

lostinwales wrote:I do rate Starmer and he has some good people behind him but he has an enormous task. He's also boring, which is a good thing, but out of step of what some people think politicians should be.

Unlike his predecessor as Labour Leader and teh current PM, Starmer had a solid and successful career before entering politics. Sadly as you say people seem to prefer "fun" politicians to serious ones. I remember back when he first ran for London Mayor someone telling me they would vote for Johnson because he would be the kind of person you would want to sit next to at a dinner party (to make sure he did not shag your wife?). That he was interesting apparently outweighed any deficiencies in actually doing anything. This has been magnified as PM.

He was a lousy (and lazy) journalist.
He was a lousy (and lazy) constituency MP.
He was a lazy Mayor - but let everyone else do their jobs so not lousy.
He was a lousy (and lazy) Foreigh Secretary.

Not really much reason to believe he could ever be a competent PM. In good times that would not have been an issue, but lets face it 2020 is not good times. Leadership is needed and frankly no-one should care if that is boring.

LondonTiger wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I do rate Starmer and he has some good people behind him but he has an enormous task. He's also boring, which is a good thing, but out of step of what some people think politicians should be.

Unlike his predecessor as Labour Leader and teh current PM, Starmer had a solid and successful career before entering politics. Sadly as you say people seem to prefer "fun" politicians to serious ones. I remember back when he first ran for London Mayor someone telling me they would vote for Johnson because he would be the kind of person you would want to sit next to at a dinner party (to make sure he did not shag your wife?). That he was interesting apparently outweighed any deficiencies in actually doing anything. This has been magnified as PM.

He was a lousy (and lazy) journalist.
He was a lousy (and lazy) constituency MP.
He was a lazy Mayor - but let everyone else do their jobs so not lousy.
He was a lousy (and lazy) Foreigh Secretary.

Not really much reason to believe he could ever be a competent PM. In good times that would not have been an issue, but lets face it 2020 is not good times. Leadership is needed and frankly no-one should care if that is boring.

Can't say I disagree with any of that. You hit the nail on the head, except you left out he has bad hair and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to an agreement (which is near miraculous). And he doesn't represent the UK well overseas. Let's hope everything settles down so we have one less thing to deal with.

Two years on and this thread is an interesting read....

Former seatwarmer president of Russia Medvedev is predicting a return to the EU, followed by it collapsing and Germany starting a 4th Reich, for next year (amongst other things). So there's that to look forward to.