INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2521 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 10:43 am

Latest post of the previous page:

By accident or design, a 'no deal' Brexit is getting closer
Theresa May’s commons statement on Brexit progress was a strange, confused and confusing mixture indicative of the strange, confused and confusing situation we are now in. On the one hand it showed some glimmers of realism about how in any ‘transition period’ ECJ jurisdiction would continue. That immediately attracted the ire of the Brexit Jacobins, such as the ubiquitous Rees-Mogg. Interestingly, there are signs that the Brexiters in the cabinet – Gove, especially – are more relaxed about this, reflecting, I suppose, the distinction between those who have the luxury of not having to take any responsibility and those who do. On the other hand, there was a much harder sense that May is preparing for a ‘no deal’ or 'Kamikaze' Brexit, and in that, of course, she has the unqualified support of the Ultras.

Why should ‘no deal’ even be being spoken of at this point? The answer seems to be a realization that the EU is unlikely to agree that sufficient progress has been made on phase 1 issues in order to progress to trade talks, and raising ‘no deal’ is perhaps designed to put pressure on the EU – or more accurately the individual member states – to give ground on this (and, by the way, even if they do UK ideas of what the future trade relationship would look like are unrealistic).

That in itself is absurd. The reason there has been no progress on phase 1 is almost entirely because the UK has failed to come up with anything remotely realistic on the issues of citizens’ rights, the financial settlement or the Irish border. And the reason for that, as ever, is because the Brexit Ultras won’t countenance anything realistic on the first two of these, whilst there is no obvious solution to the third of them. Moreover, progress has been made slow by the lack of British preparation prior to triggering Article 50, the time wasted by the election and by Tory infighting, the confused departmental structure created to handle Brexit, and the low-energy approach of David Davis to the negotiations.
So, which is it? Accident/incompetence or design?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2522 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 11:25 am

British parliament must reassert its sovereignty and reverse Brexit
From the moment in 2015 when then British prime minister David Cameron promised his ill-advised referendum, it was always possible that the UK’s long-established form of parliamentary democracy would, in the end, be the main victim. And so it came to pass, with Brexit trashing the principle of the sovereignty of parliament.

The Liberal Democrats’ current claim – echoed by many others – that there must be a referendum on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU as, perhaps, a means of reversing the 2016 verdict, is a dangerous tactic.

There is obviously the risk that “the people” would again “say no to Europe”, leaving us in a worse state. Jeremy Corbyn’s “old Labour” antipathy towards the EU as a capitalist clique blocking member states’ progress towards socialism makes that a distinct possibility. But of more fundamental import, resorting to a second referendum would confirm the sovereignty, not of the British Parliament, but of referendums.

If parliamentary sovereignty matters, then only Parliament itself can reassert it. That it does not matter very much to many MPs, including ministers, was indicated in recent weeks when they unblushingly proclaimed that “the people have instructed us to leave the EU and that is what we are doing”.

Collective responsibility

Even before the referendum vote had gone against him, Mr Cameron had thrown overboard the second key principle of parliamentary democracy – the collective responsibility of the cabinet for the decisions of the government.

Instead, he expressly allowed cabinet members to dissent from supporting the government’s decision, and, worse still, allowed them to campaign against the government of which they were still members. This was not on a matter of conscience but on a political issue of the most fundamental importance.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2523 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 2:27 pm

But how will all the unicorns and rainbows be shipped it? HAMMOND: Flights between Britain and the EU could stop in the absolute worst case Brexit outcome
Flights between the UK and the European Union could "theoretically" stop on the day Britain officially drops out of the bloc, Chancellor Philip Hammond told MPs on Wednesday.

Speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Hammond discussed the Treasury's contingency planning for the chance that Britain ends up falling out of the EU without securing a deal on trade.

He said that while flights stopping would represent the "most extreme scenario," it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

"Obviously one can plan for the most extreme scenario. Let me give you an example. It is theoretically conceivable that in a no deal scenario there will be no air traffic moving between the UK and the European Union on March 29th 2019," Hammond told the TSC's chair Nicky Morgan.

"I don't think anybody seriously believes that is where we will get to," he said.
But if we 'drop out' of the EU with no deals, then it's not 'theoretical possibility', it's a dead cert.

Remind me again what it was we voted for?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5986
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2524 Postby animist » October 11th, 2017, 2:38 pm

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... hite-paper


"customs is a canyon not a cliff edge" (as the EU would have to be ready too. So, EU, just tell the Bridiots that you won't be ready). From my POV, worse may be better - Brexit just can't happen

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2525 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 2:38 pm

It may not be too late, but is honesty too much to expect from the Brexiters? It’s not too late to be honest about Brexit
Theresa May is struggling to tell the truth. She couldn’t even say how she’d vote if there was another referendum on Brexit in her LBC interview yesterday.

At least Philip Hammond is trying. The chancellor wrote in The Times this morning that “we must be honest about the near-term challenges and complexities”. He went on to tell the Treasury Select Committee this morning that a no-deal Brexit could lead to a “bad-tempered breakdown” of relations with the EU. There was even a theoretical possibility that planes wouldn’t be able to fly to the EU, though he said nobody seriously expected that to happen.

Hammond will no doubt be condemned by Tory hardliners for being miserable. They want politicians to fuel their fantasies of sunlit uplands.

This is the game Boris Johnson has been playing. But you can’t buck reality for ever. Eventually it catches up with you – as indeed it has been catching up with the foreign secretary. His reputation has sunk as people realise he hasn’t been telling the truth.

Dishonesty is also destroying May. Her promise not to call an election. Her pretence that her multiple u-turns – notably on the dementia tax – haven’t been u-turns. Now her inability to say how she’d vote if there was another referendum. All these are eating away at her credibility.

Even worse, dishonesty is destroying our country. We are hurtling towards a disaster based on a pack of lies. There may be a few voters who know what’s in store and are happy to put up with the havoc – or to inflict it on the next generation. But many others have been deceived.

It’s not too late for May, a vicar’s daughter, to start telling the truth about what she thinks is really going on. Treat the voters as adults and, if they are happy to press on regardless, so be it. But if they change their mind when they see what Brexit means, then stop the madness.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2526 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 2:46 pm

animist wrote:https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit-no-deal-customs-white-paper


"customs is a canyon not a cliff edge" (as the EU would have to be ready too. So, EU, just tell the Bridiots that you won't be ready). From my POV, worse may be better - Brexit just can't happen

A sobering read, but it makes the very relevant point that the EU has to be ready as well.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2527 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 3:47 pm

The Brexiteers’ trade fantasies are crashing down around their ears
Nowhere did the slogan “take back control” resound more enthusiastically than in the ears of Tory free marketeers, who imagined themselves as modernist privateers, latter-day descendants of the proud tradition of Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh. During the referendum campaign you could almost hear them slapping their leather-clad thighs and looking eagerly ahead to a world where bluster and bravado replace the musty domain of the rule book and the bureaucrat.

Sadly, for these modern-day pirates of the high seas, trade in the 21st century is hedged by rules and restrictions, tariffs and quotas. Ruling the waves is going to require at least as much negotiation as finding our way out of the EU labyrinth. The events of the past few weeks have started to burst the Ripping Yarns bubble and brought the discussion down to Earth.
But...but... the unicorns... the rainbows... the £350 million...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5986
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2528 Postby animist » October 11th, 2017, 3:57 pm

apologies if you've already posted this, Alan

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rom-brexit

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2529 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 4:36 pm

'We were lied to': voters who have changed their mind on Brexit
Does the Prime Minister believe in Brexit? Theresa May refused to say how she would vote if a hypothetical fresh referendum was held, saying instead she would have to “weigh up the evidence” on an LBC radio phone-in.

We asked our readers if they regretted the way they voted in last year’s referendum. We hear from both Leave and Remain voters who have since experienced doubts about the way they voted, and how the departure process is unfolding.


Of course we were lied to. Just about the whole campaign was lie after lie after lie. The question now is whether the Brexiters are big enough to admit that what was promised just cannot be delivered and that we need to rethink what we've done or whether they are cowards who will never face up to their lies.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2530 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2017, 5:09 pm

But, but, but we were promised £350 million a week for the NHS!!! Philip Hammond admits Brexit 'no deal' will mean less money for NHS and social care
A “no deal” Brexit will mean less money for the struggling NHS and for cash-starved social care, the Chancellor has admitted.

Philip Hammond also became the first Cabinet minister to say it was “theoretically possible” that crashing out of the EU without agreement would ground all flights.

Giving evidence to MPs, he said he did not think “anybody seriously believes that it where we will get to”, arguing an air travel deal would be struck regardless.

But he made clear the financial cost to hard-pressed public services of preparing for the Brexit talks collapsing, something Theresa May has said the Government is now doing.

“Every pound we spend on contingent preparations for a hard customs border is a pound we can't spend on the NHS, social care, education or deficit reduction,” the Chancellor said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2531 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2017, 8:33 am

For hardline Brexiters, the lure of the cliff edge is irresistible
There is a contradiction here that the likes of John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin do not acknowledge, perhaps even to themselves. To make “no deal” sound acceptable, they must belittle the scale of upheaval, yet the only reason for accepting it would be to accelerate drastic change. They do not acknowledge the cliff but they dream of launching from its edge, soaring over the Atlantic once the EU shackles are broken.

The psychology of this is rooted in pre-Brexit Conservative folklore. It starts in veneration of Margaret Thatcher’s pugnacious dismantling of state-run industry in the 1980s. I don’t intend here to relitigate the case for and against those reforms. The point, for the Brexiters, is not whether Thatcher’s vision was the best one (this is beyond question in Tory theology), but that it could be done only by economic violence. The status quo needed smashing.

Tories have subsequently defined political heroism as willingness to inflict tough love. As John Major put it in 1989, when serving as Thatcher’s chancellor: “The harsh truth is that if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working.” He was talking about controlling inflation, but the maxim has become liturgy in the church of Conservative radicalism.

Interrogate the Brexit no-dealers on detail and they concede that their plan hinges on a doctrine of pain for gain. They advocate the abandonment of tariffs, inviting the world’s exporters to flood Britain with their wares. Thus would a beacon of free trade be lit on Albion’s shores, inspiring others to repent of their protectionist tendencies. This might bring cheap produce to supermarket shelves (consumer gain) but sabotage UK farmers, who would be undercut by an influx of American and Antipodean meat (producer pain).

Manufacturers would suffer too, but that is an intended consequence of opening the doors to invigorating winds of competition. The whole point is to sweep away inefficiency and blow down zombie businesses while fanning the flames of innovation. In this model, the UK economy is a vast pre-Thatcher coalfield that refuses to accept its obsolescence and must be made to confront it by force. If the timid will not jump into the future, they must be pushed.

There are countless problems with this, not least the inane strategy of unilateral economic disarmament, surrendering upfront any leverage with the US and others ahead of trade talks. Britain already has an open, liberal, globalised economy. It has problems with low productivity, an underpaid workforce, patchy infrastructure and, thanks to Brexit, regulatory uncertainty. It is unclear how those issues are addressed by setting fire to agriculture and industry, then waiting for phoenixes to rise from the ashes.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2532 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2017, 9:02 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: Farmers’ Incomes Will Be Slashed By Half If ‘No Deal’ With Brussels, Study Finds
British farmers’ incomes will be halved if Theresa May fails to get a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU, the agricultural industry’s own statutory advisory body has warned.

In a stark message, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) forecast that farm incomes will plunge if the UK decides to unilaterally open its doors to low-cost foreign food importers.

The board, which works under the auspices of Environment Secretary Michael Gove’s DEFRA department, said that average farm incomes will fall from £38,000 per year to £15,000 a year if the no-tariff model is adopted.

Its in-depth “Horizon” report also forecast that quitting the EU and erecting protectionist barriers would still see incomes fall to £20,000 on average.

Consumers would see big hikes in food prices for dairy, cereal and pork, as farmers passed on their costs to the public.
Remind me again why the fuck we're doing this?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5986
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2533 Postby animist » October 12th, 2017, 9:41 am

Alan H wrote:'We were lied to': voters who have changed their mind on Brexit
Does the Prime Minister believe in Brexit? Theresa May refused to say how she would vote if a hypothetical fresh referendum was held, saying instead she would have to “weigh up the evidence” on an LBC radio phone-in.

We asked our readers if they regretted the way they voted in last year’s referendum. We hear from both Leave and Remain voters who have since experienced doubts about the way they voted, and how the departure process is unfolding.


Of course we were lied to. Just about the whole campaign was lie after lie after lie. The question now is whether the Brexiters are big enough to admit that what was promised just cannot be delivered and that we need to rethink what we've done or whether they are cowards who will never face up to their lies.

however, as several of the responses show, some Remain voters are being alienated by what they see as the bad behaviour of the EU in sticking to its guns. This bizarre trend may intensify as things get worse, and I would not rely on some new referendum next year providing the "right" decision - instead, there is likely to be a humiliating and possibly sudden volte-face by whoever is in charge

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2534 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2017, 1:53 pm

animist wrote:however, as several of the responses show, some Remain voters are being alienated by what they see as the bad behaviour of the EU in sticking to its guns.
It's quite bizarre when not equivocating, not dithering, not changing you mind, getting basics facts wrong, etc, as the Tories and Brexiters have done all along has become so normalised that to maintain a clearly expressed position is seen as something bad...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2535 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2017, 2:38 pm

Speaking of which: Deadlock over UK's Brexit bill, says EU's Michel Barnier
The EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier says there has not been enough progress to move to the next stage of Brexit talks as the UK wants.

He said there was "new momentum" in the process but there was still "deadlock" over how much the UK pays when it leaves, which he called "disturbing".

Mr Davis said the UK still wanted to be given the green light for trade talks when EU leaders meet next week.

The pair were speaking after the fifth round of Brexit talks in Brussels.

Mr Barnier said: "I am not able in the current circumstances to propose next week to the European Council that we should start discussions on the future relationship."

The UK's Brexit Secretary David Davis urged EU leaders at the summit, on 19 and 20 October, to give Mr Barnier a mandate to start trade talks and to "build on the spirit of cooperation we now have".

He said there had been progress on the area of citizens' rights that had moved the two sides "even closer to a deal".

Mr Barnier said he hoped for "decisive progress" by the time of the December summit of the European Council.

He said Theresa May's announcement that Britain would honour financial commitments entered into as an EU member was "important".

But he said there had been no negotiations on the issue this week because the UK was not ready to spell out what it would pay.

"On this question we have reached a state of deadlock which is very disturbing for thousands of project promoters in Europe and it's disturbing also for taxpayers."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2536 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2017, 2:58 pm

What hope is there when Tory MPs tell such blatant and unadulterated lies? What world do they live in? The culture secretary said the EU referendum was binding – it wasn’t
“We are delivering on the will of the British people from the binding referendum we had in June 2016 and we are leaving the European Union.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2537 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2017, 5:37 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5986
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2538 Postby animist » October 12th, 2017, 8:38 pm

Alan H wrote:What hope is there when Tory MPs tell such blatant and unadulterated lies? What world do they live in? The culture secretary said the EU referendum was binding – it wasn’t
“We are delivering on the will of the British people from the binding referendum we had in June 2016 and we are leaving the European Union.”
actually this piece understates the position, which is that the referendum result was explicitly non-binding

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2539 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2017, 8:54 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:What hope is there when Tory MPs tell such blatant and unadulterated lies? What world do they live in? The culture secretary said the EU referendum was binding – it wasn’t
“We are delivering on the will of the British people from the binding referendum we had in June 2016 and we are leaving the European Union.”
actually this piece understates the position, which is that the referendum result was explicitly non-binding
I can understand arguments about, say, the precise cost of some Government initiative but this is an entirely factual matter that's been well discussed for 15 months. How can she get it so wrong?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5986
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2540 Postby animist » October 12th, 2017, 9:24 pm

a new (to me) aspect of the trade effects of the referendum vote:

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=7623

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2541 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2017, 11:13 am

Hostile Conservative rebels force No 10 to delay flagship Brexit bill
No 10 has been forced to delay its flagship Brexit bill after Conservative rebels backed a series of hostile amendments.

Ministers had planned to push the EU Withdrawal Bill, which has passed its second reading in the House of Commons, through to committee stage next week.

But the timetable has slipped after the Tory whips decided they needed more time to strike compromises with rebel MPs in order to avoid a series of damaging defeats.

In total 300 amendments and 54 new clauses have been tabled to the bill, which transfers European law onto the domestic statute book after Brexit, underlining the resistance within the Commons from both opposition parties and some Conservative MPs.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sarah G and 1 guest