dugsbody

Apologies for using the wrong term. In any case, I see you've found a means to deny it, as expected.

Personally, I hope that the EU does not compromise on the agreement that was negotiated and signed and we end up with no deal, which is what I wanted in the last few years of this mess. I think this would be better for the UK and Europe.

When you make an unequivocal statement like that, you completely ignore that millions of people voted for lexit (the Peter North brexit). If you're saying that was never an option then you're also saying that hard brexit didn't have a majority. You've identified this issue in the past of course, back when you were more honest, but I'm guessing you'll deny it now.

"Hostage taker say negotiators don't care about the hostages because they're not giving us everything we want".

What was necessary being lying to our "friends and partners" about our intent to honour the agreement we signed and sold to our voting public to get elected. I get where you are coming from, which I think others are missing. If I can summarise. I will type out what I think is your thought process, because you seem unwilling to flesh it out fully, instead preferring to drip feed and respond to questions with questions: "There are no laws of nature that govern how trade and borders work. They're human inventions and humans can decide how they work. The NI border is special and requires special solutions. The special solution of the NIP doesn't work for the UK. We knew it wouldn't but because of an internal situation here (brexit vote), we had to figure out a way to get the best possible deal for the people of the UK and principles or commitments are not things we need to concern ourselves about too much. The ends result is what counts. So we signed the agreement which enabled us to get the deal we wanted (TCA). We reasoned that once that was done, we would then be on a better footing to renegotiate the NIP or even abandon it if the other side did not want to renegotiate. We reason that the other side will be under much more pressure to maintain the status quo (the new TCA) at this point, so are much more likely to cave on the NIP. As opposed to previously, when the TCA was not the status quo, they were less inclined to offer it if we did not sign the NIP. Therefore, we have used whatever advantages and tactics we could to suit the UK, regardless of what people might term honour or principles or commitments to our agreements. Because the end justifies the means and brexit must be vindicated. So now a solution of no actual border between two markets who will not align is practically possible as long as everyone just looks the other way. And because it suits the UK to do this they're just going to look the other way and therefore the blame is with the other side if they choose not to." I think that's about correct. Tagging @Bob8 @slawek @pig etc

Yes, but the key is 15 minute cycle. I would also go into the office 2-3 days per week if I had a 15 minute cycle. I don't mind the office. I hate the commute. Also, other commuters are awful people.

I no longer work at my previous "bigcorp" but I do laugh at them. Apparently their "survey results" and "talking to people" indicate that everyone wants to be back at the office, not working from home. I'm guessing they limited their survey results to very senior managers, some high profile deal makers, and several up-and-coming ****-lickers, because every other person I've spoken to wants as much remote working as possible with preferably one day in the office a week, maybe two. So bigcorp have generously allowing some additional flexibility of two days maximum remote working per week, subject to manager discretion and business area. Our team was required back in full time. My resignation was very timely and I've spoken to a few ex-colleagues who are not at all happy.

People who want to live near to work and everything that London has to offer and prefer to own their place rather than rent.

Their fees are still extortionate.

No, because your post above suggests the problem. Strong leaders can always whip a population in a given direction. Your posts suggests that the people at fault are "benefit scroungers" rather than the people at the top siphoning billions of our money into their mates and donors hands. If everything was equal, you'd expect people to be more mad at the ultra-haves, stealing from us, rather than some poor sods trying to scrape by at the bottom of the barrel. But the ultra-haves control who people get angry with, because they control the narrative through the press and their other institutions. It'll always be like that.

Another politicians answer. You still did not answer my question. Not unexpected.

That's not answering my question, as usual you provide a politicians answer. I have the respect enough to give you direct answers but you don't in return. I'd like a direct answer please: If the EU gives in to the latest demands of the UK, will that be the end of it, or will there just be the next huge issue raised soon enough? Your argument that every country has its disputes is a complete swerve. I don't see these sort of issues raised with pretty much any of our other "friends and partners".

No. Not everyone. I'm saying that the current furore is because the UK government is playing to its domestic audience. Here was my question which you avoided: " I asked you before, what do you think the outcome will be if the EU agree to the UK's demands this time? I'll be that won't be the end of it. It'll be the next thing soon enough. Because this is for domestic consumption. "

There already was an internal border between mainland Britain and the UK. It's called the ocean. Regulatory checks on livestock between the Britain and NI already happen at that border and have been for years. Strangely, this wasn't "clearly unacceptable". Could you please explain to me, what possible advantage is it to the EU nations to cause an issue in Northern Ireland? They've already agreed a trade deal that brexiters salivated about. If that is important, what possible gain is there for the EU nations to be obstructionist in NI for the sake of it? I cannot see any. They simply wanted a protocol that protected the GFA and protected the SM and the UK borders too. Both sides agreed on it and signed it, so they want it enforced.

That is precisely what I'm saying. I did not expect the UK to get a deal as good as this. Yet we have. You'd think brexiters would be ecstatic, yet they're not even content with this, there has to be continued warfare with the EU, for the reasons I've already posted (domestic consumption by people likely to vote Tory). As I keep posting, there are already regulatory checks between mainland Britain and NI. Somehow these were not seen as an issue and were completely ignored. We can and should implement the protocol we agreed to and within a year or two no-one would notice the difference and everyone would be happy. Except, then people would start to look closely at the "brexit benefits" and the Tories don't want that. Hence continued warfare with the EU. I asked you before, what do you think the outcome will be if the EU agree to the UK's demands this time? I'll bet that won't be the end of it. It'll be the next thing soon enough. Because this is for domestic consumption.