Reshuffle betting – politicalbetting.com

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.

The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland

OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?

There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it

Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.

Its up to the EU and UK to compromise and create one.

In the meantime simply turning a blind eye to all traffic across both borders works as one.

So you are quite happy for asylum seekers to find their way across the land border from the Republic and NI, thus into GB?

Yes.

Not sure that Priti Patel will agree. If we should have an open door and unchecked migration then the good burghers of Daily Mail land may have an aneurysm. I mean, think what that means for the boats in the channel! Never mind dragging them back to France or sinking them, we'd just say "come in".

My opinion is my own and not Patel's. Far from the first time, won't be the last I disagree with Patel.

I'll happily credit you with that! Its a fascinating perspective from someone so demanding of a hard Brexit that we forget about stopping freedom of movement.

Which only really highlights that there was no single Leave position which explains why we are still stuck in all this years on.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.

The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland

OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?

There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it

Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.

Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.

There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.

There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.

It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.

Be very careful of those stampeding unicorns.

No unicorns necessary. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Having a complete open border between both even though the laws are different on both sides is OK for me as an interim solution. If the EU wish to put a border on their side that's their choice, but if they're not prepared to its OK for them too. No unicorn necessary.

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.

Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?

I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.

Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.

Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.

The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.

If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.

The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.

The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.

That's clearly not Patel.

That reminds me that I finally watched the Tory Boy the Movie documentary last night weekend aka In Search of Sir Stuart Bell, a self-made film of a Northern working class convert to the Conservatives campaigning for the Middlesbrough Constituency in the 2010 Election.

Interesting stuff about disillusionment with the party in power, and how Cameron opened it up.

Now on Amazon Prime.

SB would be able to flatter the French - they gave him the Legion D'Honneur after he spent much of his time in Paris, not his constituency.

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gavin Williamson doesn't turn up in person to Universities UK conference in Newcastle - but uses his videolink speech to warn universities to get back to in person teaching....

https://twitter.com/nicolawoolcock/status/1435893619504861187?s=20

Excellent... doing his bit for the environment....

I’m amazed that many more people are not making that point. Getting everyone back in offices and commuting full time, will be a serious negative to the COP26 pledges.

If we can all WFH most of the week, it’s environmentally-friendly as well as better for mental health, work-life balance and in many cases productivity.

In addition, it opens up new options for commuting and changes the value proposition of owning a car. My work practices haven't actually changed that much: 2-3 days in office pre-pandemic, looks like 2 post-pandemic, but we've sold my car and I'm now cycling. I can do that twice a week (4 hours total commute versus probably 3 hours by car, but I gain 4 hours of good exercise - have cut down on running a bit, probably net time neutral or better). Plus cost savings in only having one car. Other people might make similar assessments on public transport...

But I don't think I'd be up for 10 hours per week (full time in office) cycle commuting, versus 7.5 by car (and 150 miles of cycling)

squareroot2 said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

"The chance of a new life in Rwanda"

Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.

If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.

If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…

Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.

One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.

For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.

Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.

I completely agree with that.

Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?

No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.

If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?

Not an easy question. People smuggling is a crime that should be prosecuted. But is it right to count it a black mark against their victims by discriminating against them? No, not for me.

Are they victims if they knowingly pay for doing something that is known to be illegal?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Well the EU should have thought about Unionist opinion as well as Nationalist opinion then before it demanded a border in the Irish Sea for a trade deal with the UK.

The GFA was supposed to give equal weight to Unionist and Nationalist opinion in NI to keep the peace, not just Nationalists. That means no border in the Irish Sea as well as no border in Ireland

OK wiseguy. No border in the North Channel and no border at Dundalk. Where do you pin the tail on the donkey... I mean place the border?

There is no border needed, a technical solution can be found in Ireland to avoid it

Show me this fantastic "Norwegian" technology to be used in a country that can't even achieve a competent broadband signal outside city limits.

Brexiteers offered the techno-border as the solution during negotiations. Very simple to implement. Asked if they would sit in the transition period until their very simple techno-border was active, the answer was always a very angry no.

There is no technological solution. If there was other borders would use it.

There is no technological solution. It needs to be invented.

It can be invented once all parties are willing to compromise. If we're waiting on the never-never for it to be invented it never will be. If the alternative is a free-for-all across the border then a compromise is an improvement for both parties so it will be.

Be very careful of those stampeding unicorns.

No unicorns necessary. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Having a complete open border between both even though the laws are different on both sides is OK for me as an interim solution. If the EU wish to put a border on their side that's their choice, but if they're not prepared to its OK for them too. No unicorn necessary.

Firstly you have to identify what you want the solution to do and then work out if it's actually possible to do that.

Given the benefits it would have for international trade you then have to ask why does it not already exist - because surely it would make sense in Norway / Sweden and other similar places where both sides trust each other.

And yet it hasn't been created - at which point you have to ask, what are the reasons why it hasn't been created.

So it is a unicorn because otherwise there is at least 1 border on which it should currently exist.

Gary_Burton said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Just to cheer our SNP friends

Opinium
@OpiniumResearch
·

The SNP have increased their lead in Scotland.

Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):

SNP 51% (+4)
Conservative 21% (-4)
Labour 17% (-3)
Lib Dems 5% (+1)
Other 6% (+4)

51/49 pro independence

It is perfectly rational from a self interested view to vote SNP while not supporting independence. Such a vote can be seen as vote for the status quo: your own Scottish megaphone voice even though your population is the same as Yorkshire, lots of English money, lots of free stuff that England doesn't have, your own parliament + one in Westminster, someone else to blame for everything you don't like, and the promise of Ref2 in a future everyone knows either won't come or won't succeed.

Yes I think that's right and I would say Sturgeon derives most of her electoral popularity from socially liberal soft yes and soft no voters so I can't really see any threat to the SNP even if a 2nd referendum doesn't happen any time soon. I'm not a fan of Sturgeon personally and I think she doesn't deserve any particular credit for Scotland's pandemic response but it would be silly to say that she is not still relatively popular in the real world at least among a lot of younger voters.

Strangely I think the media is continually significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum occurring in the medium term and underestimating the SNP at the same time.

Pulpstar said:

One thing to watch with the Covid cases, does the testing continue to outpace the new cases.

Weekly

Tests ↑ 1,903,243 (32.9%)
Cases ↑ 36,196 (15.3%)

It's an encouraging straw in the wind I think, but could be a red herring. Let's see...

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

Perhaps also try telling the residents of Antrim, East Belfast or East Londonderry the border in the Irish Sea should stay too and trying to come out alive. Yes I have been to NI too.

The GFA only worked because it respected the views of Unionists and Nationalists, not just Nationalists

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

Perhaps also try telling the residents of Antrim, East Belfast or East Londonderry the border in the Irish Sea should stay too and trying to come out alive. Yes I have been to NI too.

The GFA only worked because it respected the views of Unionists and Nationalists, not just Nationalists

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

Perhaps also try telling the residents of Antrim, East Belfast or East Londonderry the border in the Irish Sea should stay too and trying to come out alive. Yes I have been to NI too.

The GFA only worked because it respected the views of Unionists and Nationalists, not just Nationalists

No shit Sherlock! Fuck me, the ignorance of the two of you, and your inability to STFU on subjects you clearly have no real life perspective when others on here have on is staggering. We are talking about a place that not long ago (when you were both still in nappies) was a war zone. I am leaving before I say something I regret.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

Perhaps also try telling the residents of Antrim, East Belfast or East Londonderry the border in the Irish Sea should stay too and trying to come out alive. Yes I have been to NI too.

The GFA only worked because it respected the views of Unionists and Nationalists, not just Nationalists

No shit Sherlock! Fuck me, the ignorance of the two of you, and your inability to STFU on subjects you clearly have no real life perspective when others on here have on is staggering. We are talking about a place that not long ago (when you were both still in nappies) was a war zone. I am leaving before I say something I regret.

What part of me saying we should compromise instead of putting a hard border down anywhere do you object to?

Northern_Al said:

Just catching up in speed mode. Seems to be a general consensus that Gavin Williamson should be sent to Rwanda. Have I got that right?

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

Perhaps also try telling the residents of Antrim, East Belfast or East Londonderry the border in the Irish Sea should stay too and trying to come out alive. Yes I have been to NI too.

The GFA only worked because it respected the views of Unionists and Nationalists, not just Nationalists

Nope the GFA worked because with both the UK and Ireland in the EU it didn't really matter which country nominally controlled Northern Ireland because the ultimate legal authority was identical.

That is no longer the case...

So now we need a new arrangement that continues to recognise and respect NI's special case nature. That neither puts a border between NI and Eire, nor NI and the UK, nor demands the UK be in the EU.

The only way to do that is to compromise and realise that both the sanctity or purity of the EU's Single Market, and the sanctity or purity of the UK's, may be compromised by NI but that's the price we're willing to pay for peace.

I'm willing to pay that price. If Brussels isn't, that's on them and let them impose a hard border between themselves and NI and let them deal with the consequences - we should play no part in imposing a border anywhere.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

Perhaps also try telling the residents of Antrim, East Belfast or East Londonderry the border in the Irish Sea should stay too and trying to come out alive. Yes I have been to NI too.

The GFA only worked because it respected the views of Unionists and Nationalists, not just Nationalists

No shit Sherlock! Fuck me, the ignorance of the two of you, and your inability to STFU on subjects you clearly have no real life perspective when others on here have on is staggering. We are talking about a place that not long ago (when you were both still in nappies) was a war zone. I am leaving before I say something I regret.

What part of me saying we should compromise instead of putting a hard border down anywhere do you object to?

We had the perfect compromise with Theresa's Deal. Your man Boris destroyed it.

That wasn't the perfect compromise.

That was saying the UK was subject to EU laws without a say in writing or changing them. That's an end to democracy.

A perfect compromise is the UK controls UK laws democratically, the EU controls EU laws democratically, and there's no border between NI and either the EU or the UK.

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?

If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.

The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.

On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.

Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future

Simples!

P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.

Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.

If the Unionist parties pull out of the NI executive until the Irish Sea border is removed then that is it, Stormont is over and direct rule will be reimposed on NI from Westminster.

The election result would then be for a redundant parliament

...and all ******* hell breaks loose.

Time crafting the GFA was not just expended for frivolity. It may be flawed but it had a purpose, namely to keep a fragile peace.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

And that fragile peace should be upheld by keeping the spirit of compromise, blind eyes and fudge that underpinned the GFA as opposed to the dogmatic binary "rule following" that the EU have demanded until now.

The GFA achieved peace by allowing the people of NI to consider themselves Irish if they wanted to, and British if they wanted to. That needs to be achieved again with compromise, so that there is neither a border in Ireland, nor in the Irish Sea, nor is Britain in the EU.

There's only one way to achieve that and that is for all parties to compromise, just as the GFA originally required. The GFA didn't achieve the fragile peace by telling one community they were getting all they wanted and the other one they could suck an egg.

There was a way to Brexit and have borderless, friction- free trade. Johnson opted against that with no forethought for Northern Ireland.

If we are allowed to defend our turf, why are the EU not supposed to?

Philip's tribal prejudice and hatred of the EU is of a similar order of magnitude to that is regrettably still on display in Northern Ireland. Thankfully the folk of NI on all sides understand that some issues are a little more complicated than shouting yah boo sucks at the people in the other camp.

I don't hate the EU, I just believe in liberal democracy.

If we're in and have European Commissioners, votes in the European Council etc then that is entirely fair enough and I used to support that.

If we're out and have no say in European laws, then European laws should not apply in this country.

That's liberal democracy, not hatred.

Good try mate. Your prejudice stinks like a nest of dead rats.

What prejudice?

We must have a way to elect governments that can change our laws. If we don't, we're no longer a liberal democracy.

Being in the EU is entirely reasonable, as we have a say in those laws. Being subject to their laws, without a say in them - how is that democratic?

I should be laughing really at the ignorance and arrogance of your simplistic statements, but we are talking about Northern Ireland, so I am not laughing at all. I suggest you and HYUFD take a visit to Belfast, maybe a tourist trip down the Falls Road (you can do those now). Try telling a few people in a pub there your views. If you come out of that alive, or not in need of a trip to the nearby Royal Victoria, maybe repeat the views on the Shankhill and see what happens there

Perhaps also try telling the residents of Antrim, East Belfast or East Londonderry the border in the Irish Sea should stay too and trying to come out alive. Yes I have been to NI too.

The GFA only worked because it respected the views of Unionists and Nationalists, not just Nationalists

No shit Sherlock! Fuck me, the ignorance of the two of you, and your inability to STFU on subjects you clearly have no real life perspective when others on here have on is staggering. We are talking about a place that not long ago (when you were both still in nappies) was a war zone. I am leaving before I say something I regret.

What part of me saying we should compromise instead of putting a hard border down anywhere do you object to?

We had the perfect compromise with Theresa's Deal. Your man Boris destroyed it.

That wasn't the perfect compromise.

That was saying the UK was subject to EU laws without a say in writing or changing them. That's an end to democracy.

A perfect compromise is the UK controls UK laws democratically, the EU controls EU laws democratically, and there's no border between NI and either the EU or the UK.

You're always saying that breaking international agreements is a sign of robust statesmanship. If we eventually decided that we didn't like Theresa's arrangement then deal with it then. What's the big deal?

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.

Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?

I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.

Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.

Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.

The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.

If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.

Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.

If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

"The chance of a new life in Rwanda"

Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.

If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.

If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…

Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.

Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.

If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?

And if that is the case why not do that now?

It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.

When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...

- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future?
- What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population?
- What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.

This makes sense but it's a Not Happening Event in a country like ours. We don't do plans beyond electoral timeframes. TBF, it's probably a necessary price of democracy.

As a general point I'm never quite sure what a "proper national conversation" looks and feels like, outside of elections and referendums.

The standard answer is we can't plan that. But apparently we have plans for the NHS for 20 years. Plans for house building. Plans for road building.....

As to "proper national conversation".... Something beyond -

"You smell!!"
"You smell worse!"

etc etc...

DO we have serious robust plans like that going out 20 years? That's a revelation to me.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

"The chance of a new life in Rwanda"

Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.

If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.

If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…

Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.

One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.

For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.

Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.

I completely agree with that.

Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?

No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.

If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?

Not an easy question. People smuggling is a crime that should be prosecuted. But is it right to count it a black mark against their victims by discriminating against them? No, not for me.

But if you allow them in, but not others, then you're counting not paying people smuggler's as a black mark.

Unfair spin. As I assess each application, I tick no box for whether or not they were a victim of people smugglers.

Razedabode said:

Gary_Burton said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Just to cheer our SNP friends

Opinium
@OpiniumResearch
·

The SNP have increased their lead in Scotland.

Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):

SNP 51% (+4)
Conservative 21% (-4)
Labour 17% (-3)
Lib Dems 5% (+1)
Other 6% (+4)

51/49 pro independence

It is perfectly rational from a self interested view to vote SNP while not supporting independence. Such a vote can be seen as vote for the status quo: your own Scottish megaphone voice even though your population is the same as Yorkshire, lots of English money, lots of free stuff that England doesn't have, your own parliament + one in Westminster, someone else to blame for everything you don't like, and the promise of Ref2 in a future everyone knows either won't come or won't succeed.

Yes I think that's right and I would say Sturgeon derives most of her electoral popularity from socially liberal soft yes and soft no voters so I can't really see any threat to the SNP even if a 2nd referendum doesn't happen any time soon. I'm not a fan of Sturgeon personally and I think she doesn't deserve any particular credit for Scotland's pandemic response but it would be silly to say that she is not still relatively popular in the real world at least among a lot of younger voters.

Strangely I think the media is continually significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum occurring in the medium term and underestimating the SNP at the same time.

A very astute observation

FrancisUrquhart said:

Slim-looking Kim Jong Un looks on as hazmat-wearing 'special force' of Covid-tackling troops take part in parade... watched by huge crowd of maskless and non-vaccinated civilians

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9972607/Kim-Jong-looks-hazmat-wearing-special-force-Covid-tackling-troops-parade.html

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Malmesbury, an advantage of the traditional office is a hub of hardware. Most people have a printer and many have scanners, but stumping up for ink then becomes a shifting cost from business to employee.

Gary_Burton said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Just to cheer our SNP friends

Opinium
@OpiniumResearch
·

The SNP have increased their lead in Scotland.

Westminster voting intention (changes on 3rd May):

SNP 51% (+4)
Conservative 21% (-4)
Labour 17% (-3)
Lib Dems 5% (+1)
Other 6% (+4)

51/49 pro independence

It is perfectly rational from a self interested view to vote SNP while not supporting independence. Such a vote can be seen as vote for the status quo: your own Scottish megaphone voice even though your population is the same as Yorkshire, lots of English money, lots of free stuff that England doesn't have, your own parliament + one in Westminster, someone else to blame for everything you don't like, and the promise of Ref2 in a future everyone knows either won't come or won't succeed.

Yes I think that's right and I would say Sturgeon derives most of her electoral popularity from socially liberal soft yes and soft no voters so I can't really see any threat to the SNP even if a 2nd referendum doesn't happen any time soon. I'm not a fan of Sturgeon personally and I think she doesn't deserve any particular credit for Scotland's pandemic response but it would be silly to say that she is not still relatively popular in the real world at least among a lot of younger voters.

Strangely I think the media is continually significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum occurring in the medium term and underestimating the SNP at the same time.

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Malmesbury, an advantage of the traditional office is a hub of hardware. Most people have a printer and many have scanners, but stumping up for ink then becomes a shifting cost from business to employee.

I remember the old days working from home for Nestle. Major global blue chip, and the kit they issued to their field-based teams were purposefully the throw-outs from head office.

Printer not working? Advice from IT was to accidentally knock it onto the floor and swap it for a non-broken one when next in the office (usually monthly). And if printing was needed before that? Simply go to a print shop as payment through the nose for printing was apparently a cheaper option than issuing the replacement printer.

Procurement was always a fun field. Kit had to be ordered through the approved supplier, travel booked through the approved agency despite their costs being in some cases multiples of the walk off the street price.

You always have to wonder with those restrictions who is getting the kickback.

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Malmesbury, an advantage of the traditional office is a hub of hardware. Most people have a printer and many have scanners, but stumping up for ink then becomes a shifting cost from business to employee.

Don't forget socialisation as well. Home offices can feel very cold, remote places, even when they're in the heart of the home.

Selebian said:

Malmesbury said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gavin Williamson doesn't turn up in person to Universities UK conference in Newcastle - but uses his videolink speech to warn universities to get back to in person teaching....

https://twitter.com/nicolawoolcock/status/1435893619504861187?s=20

Excellent... doing his bit for the environment....

I’m amazed that many more people are not making that point. Getting everyone back in offices and commuting full time, will be a serious negative to the COP26 pledges.

If we can all WFH most of the week, it’s environmentally-friendly as well as better for mental health, work-life balance and in many cases productivity.

In addition, it opens up new options for commuting and changes the value proposition of owning a car. My work practices haven't actually changed that much: 2-3 days in office pre-pandemic, looks like 2 post-pandemic, but we've sold my car and I'm now cycling. I can do that twice a week (4 hours total commute versus probably 3 hours by car, but I gain 4 hours of good exercise - have cut down on running a bit, probably net time neutral or better). Plus cost savings in only having one car. Other people might make similar assessments on public transport...

But I don't think I'd be up for 10 hours per week (full time in office) cycle commuting, versus 7.5 by car (and 150 miles of cycling)

Good point.

I should agree, but I’d be a hypocrite. Wife and I used to commute together, but my new job is in the other direction so I’m getting a new car today. Well, a new old car, which is better environmentally than a new new car - even if it is a V8!

There's also the risk that people take all their commuting savings and use it to buy a big car/brand new car, or jet off on an extra foreign holiday....

We need a proper analysis to work out whether the extra money will be used for good or ill... If ill, one solution might be to encourage home working but double/triple fuel prices, aviation tax etc

(obviously horrendously regressive, hits on-site often lower paid jobs most etc etc - I'm not serious)

Look out for employers expecting all kinds of space and equipment to be provided by the employee.

"WFH resource poverty" - a meme coming to this space. Real soon.

Good point. Mine was really good (during the pandemic) as I think they realised (a) it was important; (b) they might be on the hook for any health and safety issues and (c) they could afford to be due to facilities savings. Online order form to tick what you needed - desk, chair, laptop, screen (I was already partly WFH, so didn't actually take anything - I didn't have space for another desk or chair, were worse than I had, already had work laptop, had better screen than was offered). Not sure whether that extends to new starters now though - I'll have to ask some.

Edit: winter heating etc is also going to be a noticeable issue for those whose homes were previously unoccupied in the day.

williamglenn said:

New Zealand to pursue Covid elimination strategy indefinitely, says Ardern

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/12/new-zealand-covid-ardern-quarantine-free-travel-vaccine-reopening

Selebian said:

Malmesbury said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

Selebian said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gavin Williamson doesn't turn up in person to Universities UK conference in Newcastle - but uses his videolink speech to warn universities to get back to in person teaching....

https://twitter.com/nicolawoolcock/status/1435893619504861187?s=20

Excellent... doing his bit for the environment....

I’m amazed that many more people are not making that point. Getting everyone back in offices and commuting full time, will be a serious negative to the COP26 pledges.

If we can all WFH most of the week, it’s environmentally-friendly as well as better for mental health, work-life balance and in many cases productivity.

In addition, it opens up new options for commuting and changes the value proposition of owning a car. My work practices haven't actually changed that much: 2-3 days in office pre-pandemic, looks like 2 post-pandemic, but we've sold my car and I'm now cycling. I can do that twice a week (4 hours total commute versus probably 3 hours by car, but I gain 4 hours of good exercise - have cut down on running a bit, probably net time neutral or better). Plus cost savings in only having one car. Other people might make similar assessments on public transport...

But I don't think I'd be up for 10 hours per week (full time in office) cycle commuting, versus 7.5 by car (and 150 miles of cycling)

Good point.

I should agree, but I’d be a hypocrite. Wife and I used to commute together, but my new job is in the other direction so I’m getting a new car today. Well, a new old car, which is better environmentally than a new new car - even if it is a V8!

There's also the risk that people take all their commuting savings and use it to buy a big car/brand new car, or jet off on an extra foreign holiday....

We need a proper analysis to work out whether the extra money will be used for good or ill... If ill, one solution might be to encourage home working but double/triple fuel prices, aviation tax etc

(obviously horrendously regressive, hits on-site often lower paid jobs most etc etc - I'm not serious)

Look out for employers expecting all kinds of space and equipment to be provided by the employee.

"WFH resource poverty" - a meme coming to this space. Real soon.

Good point. Mine was really good (during the pandemic) as I think they realised (a) it was important; (b) they might be on the hook for any health and safety issues and (c) they could afford to be due to facilities savings. Online order form to tick what you needed - desk, chair, laptop, screen (I was already partly WFH, so didn't actually take anything - I didn't have space for another desk or chair, were worse than I had, already had work laptop, had better screen than was offered). Not sure whether that extends to new starters now though - I'll have to ask some.

Edit: winter heating etc is also going to be a noticeable issue for those whose homes were previously unoccupied in the day.

Dura_Ace said:

TOPPING said:

kjh said:

I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.

Stop cheering at the back.

Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.

*not in the @Dura_Ace sense of tearing along.

220W ftp or gtfo.

Theuniondivvie said:

Sarwar a bit like Leonard who was a bit like Kezia who was a bit like etc etc

CarlottaVance said:

Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....

If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?

CarlottaVance said:

Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.

Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.

A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/vaccine-passport-policy-ditched-fierce-tory-backlash-1190148

Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....

If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?

CarlottaVance said:

Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.

Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.

A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/vaccine-passport-policy-ditched-fierce-tory-backlash-1190148

Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....

If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

"The chance of a new life in Rwanda"

Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.

If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.

If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…

Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.

One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.

For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.

Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.

I completely agree with that.

Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?

No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.

If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?

Not an easy question. People smuggling is a crime that should be prosecuted. But is it right to count it a black mark against their victims by discriminating against them? No, not for me.

But if you allow them in, but not others, then you're counting not paying people smuggler's as a black mark.

Unfair spin. As I assess each application, I tick no box for whether or not they were a victim of people smugglers.

If you're only assessing those applications where people have paid people smugglers, but not those who haven't, then yes you are whether you realised it or not.

Think of people smugglers as the private schools of asylum but on steroids.

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Ministers are having second thoughts on plans to introduce mandatory Covid passports for nightclubs and other “high-risk” venues after Tory MPs tore into the proposals in the Commons.

Serious doubts have emerged over the policy, with officials now looking at whether case rates will require such measures.

A Whitehall source said “no decisions have been made yet” on the proposals, despite the Government insisting that the passes will be mandatory from the end of the month.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/vaccine-passport-policy-ditched-fierce-tory-backlash-1190148

Perhaps the shambles north of the border - "vote for it today, details to follow, (like "what a nightclub is")"......will help them think again....

If the vaccinated can still spread COVID, what's the point of "vaccine passports"?

Bit in Bold: That's like saying "if driving at 20 can still cause fatal accidents, what's the point of "speed limits?"".

The risk is much lower post vaccination. I oppose vaccine passports on principle, but lets not pretend they're not practical or would not work in reducing risk.

The question that needs answering is if that risk is worth sacrificing for. To me, no.

theProle said:

HYUFD said:

theProle said:

HYUFD said:

The Prole FPT 'At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.

If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.

One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford.
Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other.
I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.'

No, they do not want the entirety of the South East turned into a concrete jungle and urban sprawl either.

Plus unless you end all foreign investment in London property, severely restrict immigration and ensure new affordable homes are restricted to local first time buyers who have lived there for 7 years or more only new housing alone would not solve the problem

Who is "they" in this instance? Existing homeowners obviously don't want to concrete over the SE for any number of reasons. I think if you offered those who are paying £1k a month to rent a small flat the opportunity to pay ~£150k for a 3 bed semi, providing they don't mind concreting over some of the greenbelt, they will mostly bite your hands off.
As I said in my original post, the magic tipping point where this leads to a change of policy will arrive when a little more than half of residents are renting.

And yes, enough new housing would solve the problem of it being too expensive. Imagine I could snap my fingers and create 10 million houses in the SE, then auction them off at the rate of 100,000 a day, no reserve. By the end of week two, I suspect they would be fetching less than the building cost. Especially if it was known that I could snap my fingers and do it again once I'd sold them all, so there was no incentive to buy them as rental investments.

Don't get me wrong, there might be practical issues with my just plonking millions more houses down overnight, and it would create a whole raft of other issues, but it would indisputably reduce house prices to a fraction of what they are today.

The existing residents of the SE, see the LD win in Chesham and Amersham for instance over too much building on the greenbelt. Nor do those moving there from London to buy, they don't want to live in a concrete jungle.

Oh, I don't doubt that existing/new homeowners won't want more houses built.
My point is that as prices spiral further and further out of reach, the proportion of homeowners will drop, and as BTL landlords only get one vote each, regardless of how many houses they own (and foreign investors get no votes) at some point there is likely to be a majority of voters renting. They won't care about trashing house prices, and will only care a little bit about concreting over everything. They only need to have the upper hand in a 52:48 sort of way, and there could be massive changes to planning rules.

Unless every new home is limited to locals who are first time buyers who have lived in the area for 7 years or more, foreign property investment in London is banned reducing the numbers of Londoners forced into the Home Counties to buy and immigration is severely restricted reducing demand, new homes alone will not make much difference to affordability in the SE

williamglenn said:

New Zealand to pursue Covid elimination strategy indefinitely, says Ardern

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/12/new-zealand-covid-ardern-quarantine-free-travel-vaccine-reopening

AlistairM said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand to pursue Covid elimination strategy indefinitely, says Ardern

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/12/new-zealand-covid-ardern-quarantine-free-travel-vaccine-reopening

If they are going for Zero Covid forever then they are going for zero tourism industry forever. Completely cutting themselves off from the outside world. I'm sure it sounds good to people now, how about in 3 years time?