How long....

WARNING: This section may contain jokes or topics of an offensive nature.
Recommended for over 18's only. Send Admin a PM to request exclusion.

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3428
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Ihearye wrote:RCS surely you mean tax avoidance ? :)

zero is always the aim. Similar to the duties imposed by the WTO, when two countries are discussing a new trade deal, the duties rate are zero. Which I thought is interesting, given the fear of no deal
The concern is the length of time it takes to agree a deal.

I was talking about corporation tax though, not tariffs.
As long as they have the moral fortitude or have that fortitude forced on them, that the no 'Corp tax' benefits all.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3428
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
and now I think we are all in agreement that its a pile of 5hit, but it is OUR 5hit!!!!
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ihearye wrote:and now I think we are all in agreement that its a pile of 5hit, but it is OUR 5hit!!!!
And our opportunity. I look forward to the opportunities and new ideas No Deal will bring.

But I don’t think Parliament will be and will keep causing chaos. A People’s Vote will end the chaos.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3428
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
That and opening the paper and finding something else to read about. Was trying to find an article on Adelaide being made the centre of the Australian Space Agency but gave up! Remember all those rocket launches from some strange place called Woomera ??? Must take a look and google maps and see where the hell that is in the country
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3428
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Ihearye wrote:and now I think we are all in agreement that its a pile of 5hit, but it is OUR 5hit!!!!
And our opportunity. I look forward to the opportunities and new ideas No Deal will bring.

But I don’t think Parliament will be and will keep causing chaos. A People’s Vote will end the chaos.
Or, and I feel more likely, just prolong the chaos. Try getting anything through Parliament ……….
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1599
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Shade wrote:We're still in the EU, so how do we know what the outcomes will be? We won't know for certain what will happen until it happens. Anyone that says differently is as full of horseshit as everyone else.
The outcomes of a second referendum, in my opinion, would be pretty clear.

Given that we now know the outcome of Theresa May's Brexit negotiations with the EU, the electorate (assuming they read at least a summary of the Withdrawal Agreement) now know what they would be voting on. This is based on an assumption that a second referendum would feature the options of: May's deal, no deal, or remain in on current terms.

This would be completely different to the 2016 referendum where the question was simply, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" with no clarity as to what leaving the EU meant.

So this is what I meant by what the "outcomes" would be, as this time round we'd actually know what we were voting for. Perhaps the wrong choice of word but I hope it's now clear what I meant.
Last edited by Johnsons Red Army on 13 Dec 2018, 17:36, edited 1 time in total.
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
Personally, I think there would be a sizable swing to Remain, should there be a second referendum (which I do not believe there should be.) People now have a better idea of the Art of the Possible and the total fabrication that both campaigns spewed out would be disregarded.

I know a few people who have changed their opinion and now openly admit that they believed the could eat their cake and, in particular, didn't realise they were voting to leave the Customs Union.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1599
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
I also believe a second vote would lead to a Remain majority, based on similar reasoning.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ihearye wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Ihearye wrote:and now I think we are all in agreement that its a pile of 5hit, but it is OUR 5hit!!!!
And our opportunity. I look forward to the opportunities and new ideas No Deal will bring.

But I don’t think Parliament will be and will keep causing chaos. A People’s Vote will end the chaos.
Or, and I feel more likely, just prolong the chaos. Try getting anything through Parliament ……….
A People’s Vote would give a definitive instruction to Parliament to Act
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3428
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
asl wrote:Personally, I think there would be a sizable swing to Remain, should there be a second referendum (which I do not believe there should be.) People now have a better idea of the Art of the Possible and the total fabrication that both campaigns spewed out would be disregarded.

I know a few people who have changed their opinion and now openly admit that they believed the could eat their cake and, in particular, didn't realise they were voting to leave the Customs Union.
Well that is all the evidence we need then! We merely have to extrapolate that piece of significant research against the !7.2 million and hey presto, they were all so stupid they didnt know what they were voting for. While those that voted to stay, were all soo intelligent and enlightened that they had explored every bit of information out there, that they made an educated informed choice. It is a thousand shades of grey on both sides of the vote
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3428
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
RCS - as I argued before, what form would any question be ? The premise of your view, is, I guess, that Mrs May has ben an ace negotiator and nobody else could have played it any better. So it is her way or the highway ? No matter what questions you come up with< I doubt it would please a sizable chunk of the population. Either that, or there will be so many questions, the winning option could end up with something like 30% of the vote. Not verty satisfactory
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
Don't be a dick... Quite clearly I haven't asked 7.2m people and quite clearly I wasn't implying that my personal experience could be extrapolated out. I also know one person who has gone the other way and now thinks we should leave because the EU negotiators are clearly trying to get the best deal for *them*. (No sh1t, Sherlock...) The point is, people can and do change their minds and my impression is that there could be a 5% swing to Remain.

Stupid? No, I don't think people were stupid to vote to Leave: I think they were wrong simply because they were ill-informed. I'm not saying I was any better informed - and *that* is my point. The vote should never have been given to Joe Public because they did not have the information from which to make an informed decision. I'm a reasonably well educated professional person with an interest in politics and economics. I didn't have enough information. Big Dave Smith who drives a white van, reads the Daily Mail and thinks I'm a Celebrity is the pinnacle of TV - you ain't telling me he knew better than me if he voted to Leave. No, no leavers knew the outcome of leaving - you'd have to be Hari Seldon to have known that. I voted to remain because I knew what the outcome of that was likely to be.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ihearye wrote:RCS - as I argued before, what form would any question be ? The premise of your view, is, I guess, that Mrs May has ben an ace negotiator and nobody else could have played it any better. So it is her way or the highway ? No matter what questions you come up with< I doubt it would please a sizable chunk of the population. Either that, or there will be so many questions, the winning option could end up with something like 30% of the vote. Not verty satisfactory
She has been a poor negotiator. Many could have played it better. But that is not how it works is it. Otherwise it sounds like you’d be happy for a new leader to start a new negotiation every 18 months and we could still be in this position in 5 years time.

MPs will vote on the deal and probably vote it down. PM and Parliament then have a choice: No Deal, Delay Article 50 and start negotiating again which could last another year or two, or People’s Vote. The middle of those will probably require either a May resignation a Labour no confidence vote which the ERG and Tory Remainers back.

I would only have No Deal, May’s Deal, Remain on the ballot. No point in a hypothetical wish list of things, some of which won’t be possible. We had that in 2016. The People’s Vote should only include actual here and now clear options which actually exist for us leaving by end of March 2019.

You don’t have a General Election ballot with some real candidates and some vague description of hypothetical future candidates people may prefer.

May won a General Election in 2017 to negotiate an exit in March 2019. That’s what she was elected to do and she has made the best agreement she can. Not great but that is the option on the table.
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
What was that post I saw on Facebook the other day?

"In 2016, 60% decided May was the right person to lead them. In the same year, 52% decided we should leave the EU. Apparently, it's okay to allow the former a vote to see if they've changed their minds yet it's an affront to democracy to afford the same to the latter."

Quite good, I thought.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
asl wrote:Don't be a dick... Quite clearly I haven't asked 7.2m people and quite clearly I wasn't implying that my personal experience could be extrapolated out. I also know one person who has gone the other way and now thinks we should leave because the EU negotiators are clearly trying to get the best deal for *them*. (No sh1t, Sherlock...) The point is, people can and do change their minds and my impression is that there could be a 5% swing to Remain.

Stupid? No, I don't think people were stupid to vote to Leave: I think they were wrong simply because they were ill-informed. I'm not saying I was any better informed - and *that* is my point. The vote should never have been given to Joe Public because they did not have the information from which to make an informed decision. I'm a reasonably well educated professional person with an interest in politics and economics. I didn't have enough information. Big Dave Smith who drives a white van, reads the Daily Mail and thinks I'm a Celebrity is the pinnacle of TV - you ain't telling me he knew better than me if he voted to Leave. No, no leavers knew the outcome of leaving - you'd have to be Hari Seldon to have known that. I voted to remain because I knew what the outcome of that was likely to be.
Lack of information the main thing. No one knew what Leave meant. Sure, I know EU policy, international trade, labour markets, supply chains and sector regulations like pharma and nuclear inside out. But all that meant is I knew what we had already. And I knew the downside of losing all that but not a clue what we would lose and what we would keep, or what trade deals we would have with EU and the World. No one knew then and no one does now either. The Vote was for something different, and change, not for anything anything tangible.

At least another vote could actually have something to vote for - May’s Deal or WTO Rules. I would then not have any campaigning. Just neutral bland but digestible facts on the key points of both options so people can make a genuinely informed decision.
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
asl wrote:Don't be a dick... Quite clearly I haven't asked 7.2m people and quite clearly I wasn't implying that my personal experience could be extrapolated out. I also know one person who has gone the other way and now thinks we should leave because the EU negotiators are clearly trying to get the best deal for *them*. (No sh1t, Sherlock...) The point is, people can and do change their minds and my impression is that there could be a 5% swing to Remain.

Stupid? No, I don't think people were stupid to vote to Leave: I think they were wrong simply because they were ill-informed. I'm not saying I was any better informed - and *that* is my point. The vote should never have been given to Joe Public because they did not have the information from which to make an informed decision. I'm a reasonably well educated professional person with an interest in politics and economics. I didn't have enough information. Big Dave Smith who drives a white van, reads the Daily Mail and thinks I'm a Celebrity is the pinnacle of TV - you ain't telling me he knew better than me if he voted to Leave. No, no leavers knew the outcome of leaving - you'd have to be Hari Seldon to have known that. I voted to remain because I knew what the outcome of that was likely to be.
Lack of information the main thing. No one knew what Leave meant. Sure, I know EU policy, international trade, labour markets, supply chains and sector regulations like pharma and nuclear inside out. But all that meant is I knew what we had already. And I knew the downside of losing all that but not a clue what we would lose and what we would keep, or what trade deals we would have with EU and the World. No one knew then and no one does now either. The Vote was for something different, and change, not for anything anything tangible.

At least another vote could actually have something to vote for - May’s Deal or WTO Rules. I would then not have any campaigning. Just neutral bland but digestible facts on the key points of both options so people can make a genuinely informed decision.
Yes, it was very clear what leave meant : OUT OF THE CUSTOM UNION. Whilst the remoaners were scaring the nation about financial crashes and WW3.

As I clearly stated yesterday; we already had a people's vote. ...and if the snowflakes remoaners won it, do you think the brexiters would demand a undemocratic 2nd vote.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Malabus wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
asl wrote:Don't be a dick... Quite clearly I haven't asked 7.2m people and quite clearly I wasn't implying that my personal experience could be extrapolated out. I also know one person who has gone the other way and now thinks we should leave because the EU negotiators are clearly trying to get the best deal for *them*. (No sh1t, Sherlock...) The point is, people can and do change their minds and my impression is that there could be a 5% swing to Remain.

Stupid? No, I don't think people were stupid to vote to Leave: I think they were wrong simply because they were ill-informed. I'm not saying I was any better informed - and *that* is my point. The vote should never have been given to Joe Public because they did not have the information from which to make an informed decision. I'm a reasonably well educated professional person with an interest in politics and economics. I didn't have enough information. Big Dave Smith who drives a white van, reads the Daily Mail and thinks I'm a Celebrity is the pinnacle of TV - you ain't telling me he knew better than me if he voted to Leave. No, no leavers knew the outcome of leaving - you'd have to be Hari Seldon to have known that. I voted to remain because I knew what the outcome of that was likely to be.
Lack of information the main thing. No one knew what Leave meant. Sure, I know EU policy, international trade, labour markets, supply chains and sector regulations like pharma and nuclear inside out. But all that meant is I knew what we had already. And I knew the downside of losing all that but not a clue what we would lose and what we would keep, or what trade deals we would have with EU and the World. No one knew then and no one does now either. The Vote was for something different, and change, not for anything anything tangible.

At least another vote could actually have something to vote for - May’s Deal or WTO Rules. I would then not have any campaigning. Just neutral bland but digestible facts on the key points of both options so people can make a genuinely informed decision.
Yes, it was very clear what leave meant : OUT OF THE CUSTOM UNION. Whilst the remoaners were scaring the nation about financial crashes and WW3.

As I clearly stated yesterday; we already had a people's vote. ...and if the snowflakes remoaners won it, do you think the brexiters would demand a undemocratic 2nd vote.
Plenty of the Leave campaign said we would stay in a form of customs union to ensure trade and business labour supply. There was not a united position of leaving the CU.

Farage already said before the referendum that if Remain won 52-48 there would be grounds for a second vote.
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
I never once heard on any of the leave teams say we would stay in the customs union.
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
Malabus wrote:and if the snowflakes remoaners won it, do you think the brexiters would demand a undemocratic 2nd vote.
Ha. Haha. Hahaha hahaha....... As well you know Farage was calling for a second referendum before the final result was announced when it appeared that his cause had lost.
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
asl wrote:
Malabus wrote:and if the snowflakes remoaners won it, do you think the brexiters would demand a undemocratic 2nd vote.
Ha. Haha. Hahaha hahaha....... As well you know Farage was calling for a second referendum before the final result was announced when it appeared that his cause had lost.
Non sense.
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1599
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/n ... um-7985017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
asl wrote:
Malabus wrote:and if the snowflakes remoaners won it, do you think the brexiters would demand a undemocratic 2nd vote.
Ha. Haha. Hahaha hahaha....... As well you know Farage was calling for a second referendum before the final result was announced when it appeared that his cause had lost.
Ignore Mal. He’s on a wind up.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
asl wrote:What was that post I saw on Facebook the other day?

"In 2016, 60% decided May was the right person to lead them. In the same year, 52% decided we should leave the EU. Apparently, it's okay to allow the former a vote to see if they've changed their minds yet it's an affront to democracy to afford the same to the latter."

Quite good, I thought.
On the topic of democracy. Shame in a way to be leaving the EU which has two elected chambers - much more democratic than our government with one unelected chamber and one reliant on the first past the post system.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Some thoughts from Bloomberg:

“It had been clear for weeks that May’s deal — hard fought over months of negotiation — was facing a landslide rejection in the House of Commons. And rightly so: It would stunt Britain’s economy, burden its companies, and infringe its sovereignty, offering essentially no benefits and solving no problems. Everyone hated it.

Even so, proceeding with the vote had a certain logic. It would have allowed Parliament to reject the deal, and cleared the way for work to begin on alternatives. The country and its voters would have been offered at least the possibility of a way forward. What they got instead was yet more paralysis.

Confronted with such an outright rejection of her plan, what should May have done instead? She should have admitted defeat, acknowledging that an agreement acceptable to both the EU and a parliamentary majority cannot be reached. Realistically, the alternatives reduce to a no-deal Brexit or remaining in the EU. In any event, the choice should be put back before the electorate.“

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Johnsons Red Army
Posts: 1599
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 14:19
Location: Stroud
Seems the only realistic option left, with May's deal seemingly going to be voted down.

EU have already closed the door to any further negotiations - presumably with May and/or her replacement. I just can't see the government/parliament allowing us to crash out without a deal, given the severe economic consequences which would result.

Which leaves a second vote as the only realistic option.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
From the first leader article in the current edition of the economist:

“The government’s struggle to get the deal through Parliament exposes a crack that Brexit has created at the heart of Britain’s democracy. Most MPs believe, with reason, that Mrs May’s imperfect compromise is worse than the status quo. As the people’s elected representatives, they have every right to block it. On the other hand, the referendum of 2016 gave them a clear instruction to leave. Although that vote carries no legal weight, it has taken on a moral force like little else. Today’s paralysis is the result of Britain’s inability to reconcile its tradition of representative democracy with its more recent experiments in the direct sort.

Many argue that MPs should shut their eyes and vote for what they believe to be a damaging plan, out of respect for the referendum. They are wrong. Their argument rests on a flawed assumption: that the majority for Leave in 2016 means any resulting deal reflects the will of the people. It is far from clear that Mrs May’s plan does. It breaks many of her own negotiating red lines, never mind the promises made by campaigners in the run-up to the vote. The government has largely given up arguing that its deal will be good for the country, instead insisting that it is what democracy demands. Yet no one can claim to intuit what the people want. The only way to know is to ask them.

The path to a second referendum is treacherous. Parliament will struggle to agree on its form. Heavy defeat for Mrs May could lead to a general election, in which all parties would put forward brilliant-sounding but impossible Brexit plans, adding to the muddle. The rejection of Mrs May’s deal would raise the risk of leaving with no deal at all, a disaster for Britain and bad news for its neighbours. Fortunately, such an accidental no-deal Brexit became less likely this week—because MPs, most of whom rightly see it as a catastrophe, will now have a greater say.

Even if those obstacles were overcome, there would remain the most powerful objection to a second referendum: that it would cheat those who voted in the first. The EU has an ignoble tradition of getting people to vote again when they choose the “wrong” answer. If the vote to leave was a rebellion against the establishment, a second referendum would be seen as a counter-revolution.

The risk is real. A second referendum would cause lasting resentment and would fuel populist parties peddling the stab-in-the-back theory. Yet to rule it out on this basis ignores how any softish Brexit deal would also be denounced as a betrayal and a sell-out. Hardline Leavers describe Mrs May’s plan as “vassalage”, a “national humiliation” and a “cheating” of those who voted to leave. Likewise, the belief that approving the deal will get the whole divisive episode over and done with ignores the fact that, after Brexit day, Britain faces perhaps a decade of trade negotiations with the EU, involving more of the painful trade-offs between prosperity and control that the public have grown so sick of. All the while, the country will be falling further behind its potential. It is true that a second referendum would cause lasting anger and undermine faith in politics. But so would pushing through a deal in the name of the people amid evidence that the people were unconvinced.

Brexit is often likened to a divorce. In fact the two years since the referendum have been more like a rocky engagement. Voters were swept off their feet by the promises of the Leave campaign, only to discover that the future relationship was not going to be as they had imagined. Calling it off would be mortifying. Yet seeing it through could be a serious, permanent mistake. If the British are determined to plough on, that is their right. But now that they know what Brexit really means, they deserve the chance to say whether they still want it.“
asl
Posts: 6668
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:37
Really, RCS? Bloomberg? The Economist? They sound like 'Experts.' I think this country has had quite enough of Experts, don't you?
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
Gentlemen please sign.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Malabus wrote:Gentlemen please sign.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wouldn’t need to have a petition with just hundreds of thousands signing if there was a People’s Vote where tens of millions could vote for it.
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Malabus wrote:Gentlemen please sign.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wouldn’t need to have a petition with just hundreds of thousands signing if there was a People’s Vote where tens of millions could vote for it.
WE HAVE ALREADY HAD A PEOPLE VOTE. DDDDDUUUURR
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Malabus wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Malabus wrote:Gentlemen please sign.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wouldn’t need to have a petition with just hundreds of thousands signing if there was a People’s Vote where tens of millions could vote for it.
WE HAVE ALREADY HAD A PEOPLE VOTE. DDDDDUUUURR
Ok then - tell me the % of voters who voted for No Deal and the % who vote for May’s Deal in the 2016 election.

Also, why do you need a petition if the first vote was so clear on what type of Brexit people want?
User avatar
Malabus
Posts: 13336
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 12:26
Location: The Death Star.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Malabus wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: Wouldn’t need to have a petition with just hundreds of thousands signing if there was a People’s Vote where tens of millions could vote for it.
WE HAVE ALREADY HAD A PEOPLE VOTE. DDDDDUUUURR
Ok then - tell me the % of voters who voted for No Deal and the % who vote for May’s Deal.

Also, why do you need a petition if the first vote was so clear on what type of Brexit people want?
LEAVE MEANS LEAVE DDDUUUURRR.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Well both May’s Deal and No Deal mean leave, as they both see us leaving the EU. So I ask again, if you can tell me which of those two leave options won the most votes in 2016 then please do.

Again I also ask, if it is so clear that all 52% (Leave voters) prefer the latter why do you need a petition to prove it? And if you need to prove it, why not ask the whole country to vote on it?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29757
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Just reading some of the text on that Petition:

“Leaving the EU in March 2019 will allow the UK good time to negotiate more efficiently.”

“The EU border in Ireland to be managed simply by having a dual Euro / pound currency as legal tender in both the North and South. Exports to the South would be dealt with in Euro and vice versa when importing to the North. Rates fixed at time of the deal.”

Who came up with this nonsense??
Red Duke
Posts: 1991
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:15
Location: North West
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Just reading some of the text on that Petition:

“Leaving the EU in March 2019 will allow the UK good time to negotiate more efficiently.”

“The EU border in Ireland to be managed simply by having a dual Euro / pound currency as legal tender in both the North and South. Exports to the South would be dealt with in Euro and vice versa when importing to the North. Rates fixed at time of the deal.”

Who came up with this nonsense??
The level of ignorance on the subject is on par with the Minister for Northern Ireland's knowledge of Irish politics.
Post Reply