Kiwirob wrote:

Terrible result, that's all on May, she was a disaster, but looking on the brighter side SNP's mandate in Scotland erroded significantly.

There is hope for Britain. Both sides of Handrian's wall are fed up with isolationism.

Apparently younger voters have bothered to show up for a change.

vfw614 wrote:

Not really since this is a first past the post system - the DUP would take the Tories past that post, there would be no eroding of anything by Sinn Fein, that's not how it works.

You are correct. My assumption was based on the CONs winning 314, but apparently they will win 318 or 319 now which means that they would also pass 326 together with the DUP.

What I find interesting (from an outside perspective ) is that with Sinn Fein not taking up their seats these constitutiencies apparently are unrepresented - whereas in the case of an MP resigning or dying, the system takes care of the constituents being represented through a by-election.

Sinn Fein wont take up their seats because they would need to swear allegiance to the Queen - something they will never do.

And their constituents *are* being represented - thats the platform that SF ran on, so the constituents are getting the representation they voted for. If a forced by-election was called, SF would win again.

An alliance with the DUP could lead to very funny Irish border Brexit negotiation

Olddog wrote:

An alliance with the DUP could lead to very funny Irish border Brexit negotiation

I don't get why people keep going on about the NI border and Brexit, because the *current* border has absolutely nothing at all to do with the EU - neither Ireland nor the UK are part of the Schengen area, and the border between Ireland and the UK is regulated by a non-EU treaty dating back nearly a hundred years - yes it does make that border an "external European Union border" but that doesnt actually change anything since neither country is part of Schengen, so customs and immigration is still done at the Schengen border on the continent!

Post-Brexit, the Common Travel Area between Ireland and the UK can easily remain - it existed before the EU, it can exist with us out of the EU.

moo wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

Not really since this is a first past the post system - the DUP would take the Tories past that post, there would be no eroding of anything by Sinn Fein, that's not how it works.

You are correct. My assumption was based on the CONs winning 314, but apparently they will win 318 or 319 now which means that they would also pass 326 together with the DUP.

What I find interesting (from an outside perspective ) is that with Sinn Fein not taking up their seats these constitutiencies apparently are unrepresented - whereas in the case of an MP resigning or dying, the system takes care of the constituents being represented through a by-election.

Sinn Fein wont take up their seats because they would need to swear allegiance to the Queen - something they will never do.

And their constituents *are* being represented - thats the platform that SF ran on, so the constituents are getting the representation they voted for. If a forced by-election was called, SF would win again.

Sure, but you could take care of that nonsense of running and then refusing to take up the seat by stipulating that a by-election will take under such circumstances where the runner-up will be allowed to go to Westminster should the winner again refuse to take up the seat. For me, it is more of a question whether or not each constituency should be represented in Parliament and not so much if the (relative) majority of contituents have voted for non-representation.

moo wrote:

Post-Brexit, the Common Travel Area between Ireland and the UK can easily remain - it existed before the EU, it can exist with us out of the EU.

The issue is not people (CTA can continue with cosmetic adjustments if need be) but goods and services.

A hard Brexit would mean customs, and NI and ROI economies gradually decoupling from each other. That will bite into individual travellers too (I need to check your bags and could you please open your boot sir?)

vfw614 wrote:

moo wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

You are correct. My assumption was based on the CONs winning 314, but apparently they will win 318 or 319 now which means that they would also pass 326 together with the DUP.

What I find interesting (from an outside perspective ) is that with Sinn Fein not taking up their seats these constitutiencies apparently are unrepresented - whereas in the case of an MP resigning or dying, the system takes care of the constituents being represented through a by-election.

Sinn Fein wont take up their seats because they would need to swear allegiance to the Queen - something they will never do.

And their constituents *are* being represented - thats the platform that SF ran on, so the constituents are getting the representation they voted for. If a forced by-election was called, SF would win again.

Sure, but you could take care of that nonsense of running and then refusing to take up the seat by stipulating that a by-election will take under such circumstances where the runner-up will be allowed to go to Westminster should the winner again refuse to take up the seat. For me, it is more of a question whether or not each constituency should be represented in Parliament and not so much if the (relative) majority of contituents have voted for non-representation.

Running on a platform of non-representation is a right we definitely dont want to take away from the candidates and the voters...

The candidates stood on a platform of "we wont take our seats", the voters spoke and elected those candidates. I think thats more than enough representation that is needed.

After all, if you forced a candidate to take their seat, would you also force them to engage with Parliament? Vote? Take part in debates? Where does it end?

You can also see it differently:

In 4 of the 7 constituencies SF won, the majority of voters voted for representation in Westminster because they did not vote for SF. Does it mean that they would rather be represented not at all instead of by someone of another party because they voted for a party that did not win the majority? That's an interesting question from a democratic perspective. Only in 3 constituencies SF had more than 50 per cent of the votes (and in one, only by less than a percentage point). As I said, it depends on the perspective.

vfw614 wrote:

You can also see it differently:

In 4 of the 7 constituencies SF won, the majority of voters voted for representation in Westminster because they did not vote for SF.

Only if you do some maths which simply don't count in the system of representation we have.

The UK had a referendum on changing the system in 2011 - we rejected it massively. And yet people still try to use contortionist logic to moan about the system.

vfw614 wrote:

Does it mean that they would rather be represented not at all instead of by someone of another party because they voted for a party that did not win the majority?

It means that they lost. Thats it. They get to be represented by a candidate they didn't vote for, in a manner that they didn't vote for. And the representation that the winning candidate chose, and that the largest voting block of voters chose, was to not take a seat in Parliament.

vfw614 wrote:

As I said, it depends on the perspective.

It also depends heavily on the system used. This is the system we use. We like it.

Its definitely very amusing, and somewhat highly ironic that, just days after deriding Jeremy Corbyn as an IRA terrorist sympathiser and friend, the current government are cozying up to the DUP, who are just as much historical terrorists as Sinn Fein are...

First by the post is not the most democratic system anyway.

From what I'm reading on wikipedia (updated quickly for such events) the Tories got 13,650,900 votes, Labour 12,858,652 votes.

Aesma wrote:

First by the post is not the most democratic system anyway.

Until we find a way to have all national decisions made with the input and consent of each and every member of the electorate, you are going to have similar issues with all systems.

This is the system we want to use.

Aesma wrote:

From what I'm reading on wikipedia (updated quickly for such events) the Tories got 13,650,900 votes, Labour 12,858,652 votes.

The DUP got 7 seats with a total vote of 292,316, while UKIP got no seats with a total vote of 593,852.

Plaid Cymru got 4 seats with a total vote of 164,466.

Is that fair?

Yes - because seats are local, and the total counts are not. Plaid Cymru is a local party in Wales, they wouldn't get any representation at all if it were not done on a local basis. The DUP is the same - its a local party for NI, they wouldn't get any worthwhile representation if we had a PR system.

Its trivial to get a large total count by standing 650 separate candidates in the election, with each getting 1000 votes each - it all tots up. But individually, those candidates did poorly. So poorly that in fact they lost their deposits in dozens of constituencies.

I'm not sure that any other country gets scenes like these in their national elections...

Not as good as Lord Buckethead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLghA7Wer6I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPvPKKyXOHo

Fun fact: The Conservatives, despite losing their majority, won more votes in this election than Tony Blair did in his 1997 landslide or Margaret Thatcher did in 1983..

Theresa May just gave a speech as if the Tories have a majority of seats - I don't think anyones told her...

The bad thing about this is that she has basically claimed a mandate to do as she wishes - that needs to be slapped down quickly.

A Tory-DUP coalition should be interesting, because its basically a Tory government on everything except NI stuff - this gives the Tories much more power than they had with the LibDem coalition back in 2010.

The power to do what ? It seems the DUP are a bunch of religious retards...

bmacleod wrote:

Opinion polling shows the race getting close - is another hung parliament possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

Hung parliament. Looks like the polls nailed this race.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Fun fact: The Conservatives, despite losing their majority, won more votes in this election than Tony Blair did in his 1997 landslide or Margaret Thatcher did in 1983..

Which is not saying much seeing that the population of Britain has gone up.

BTW Excellent speech from Theresa May.. Was very very happy with it....

Olddog wrote:

The power to do what ? It seems the DUP are a bunch of religious retards...

So long as the DUP get what they want in NI, the Tories get what they want in the rest of the UK - no core compromises in either camp needed, as the DUP has no mainland constituencies to lose, and the Tories have no NI constituencies to lose.

Its a very very dangerous situation.

moo wrote:

Theresa May just gave a speech as if the Tories have a majority of seats - I don't think anyones told her...

The bad thing about this is that she has basically claimed a mandate to do as she wishes - that needs to be slapped down quickly.

With the DUP, the new Government can claim 328 seats. That is two less than the majority the Conservatives alone had going into the election (330 seats).
BUT: Sinn Fein have increased their number of seats from four to seven. That means that, proportionally speaking, the Conservatives and DUP have about the same kind of majority as the Conservatives had before the election because Sinn Fein don't take up their seats. If, as you suggest in another post, a deal is struck whereby the DUP gets free rein over Northern Ireland in exchange for supporting Conservative policies in the rest of the UK, then, oddly enough, you're probably looking at a continuation of the status quo from before the election.

KLDC10 wrote:

moo wrote:

Theresa May just gave a speech as if the Tories have a majority of seats - I don't think anyones told her...

The bad thing about this is that she has basically claimed a mandate to do as she wishes - that needs to be slapped down quickly.

With the DUP, the new Government can claim 328 seats. That is two less than the majority the Conservatives alone had going into the election (330 seats).
BUT: Sinn Fein have increased their number of seats from four to seven. That means that, proportionally speaking, the Conservatives and DUP have about the same kind of majority as the Conservatives had before the election because Sinn Fein don't take up their seats. If, as you suggest in another post, a deal is struck whereby the DUP gets free rein over Northern Ireland in exchange for supporting Conservative policies in the rest of the UK, then, oddly enough, you're probably looking at a continuation of the status quo from before the election.

Oh I know, with the coalition votes, May has the same basic ability to pass law as before.

The problem I have is that, despite that, she has lost the *mandate* to do the things she wants to do.

I don't think May will be around for long. The Conservatives are quite brutal when it comes to throwing their leaders overboard!

moo wrote:

Oh I know, with the coalition votes, May has the same basic ability to pass law as before.

The problem I have is that, despite that, she has lost the *mandate* to do the things she wants to do.

In terms of seats, absolutely. It doesn't reflect well upon her. But she did increase the Conservative vote share from around 37% in 2015 to 42% this year based on the latest figures. The problem for her was that Labour increased their share from 30% to 40% over the same period. Seemingly both parties benefited from a collapse in support for UKIP, but from the illustrations I've seen floating around on the BBC website, Labour (perhaps surprisingly) seemed to benefit more. It was very much a two-horse race, compared with a fragmented field only a couple of years ago. I think the Liberal Democrats are lucky to get about 8% of the vote these days.

So now that Corbyn has led Labour to a twenty point swing in their favour, will the media finally stop declaring him to be unelectable? Will his Blair-worshipping MPs take a temporary hiatus from backstabbing him? How much more can the government get away with cutting the NHS.

May's hubris seems even greater than Hillary's!

ltbewr wrote:

PM May is coming off like a total tool. She and the Tories gambled and lost.

Just like brexit which was caused entirely by an internal power struggle in the Conservative Party. Why anyone would trust the party that got the country into this brexit mess to lead the country out of it, I have no idea.

coolian2 wrote:

The upcoming New Zealand election is starting to look really interesting. One of the more progressive countries, same government for nine years, younger people (at 29 I still count) getting increasingly involved in politics, even at the local level, the current leading party has a huge lead over the coalition of alternatives.....

I too am looking forward to Winston becoming PM. The arrogance of the Nats is getting unbearable. Having his hand-picked successor overseeing John Key being knighted is just ridiculous.

KLDC10 wrote:

moo wrote:

Theresa May just gave a speech as if the Tories have a majority of seats - I don't think anyones told her...

The bad thing about this is that she has basically claimed a mandate to do as she wishes - that needs to be slapped down quickly.

With the DUP, the new Government can claim 328 seats. That is two less than the majority the Conservatives alone had going into the election (330 seats).
BUT: Sinn Fein have increased their number of seats from four to seven. That means that, proportionally speaking, the Conservatives and DUP have about the same kind of majority as the Conservatives had before the election because Sinn Fein don't take up their seats. If, as you suggest in another post, a deal is struck whereby the DUP gets free rein over Northern Ireland in exchange for supporting Conservative policies in the rest of the UK, then, oddly enough, you're probably looking at a continuation of the status quo from before the election.

She's obviously happy to thrown her LGBT, Catholic, women's rights, line and drink loving vote under a bus.. If a lot of people disliked her before this election they're going to absolutely hate her now.

She's made it plainly clear that all she cares about is power...nothing else. Reminds me of another narcissist.

zkojq wrote:

So now that Corbyn has led Labour to a twenty point swing in their favour, will the media finally stop declaring him to be unelectable? Will his Blair-worshipping MPs take a temporary hiatus from backstabbing him? How much more can the government get away with cutting the NHS.

I suppose that would depend on how his support was broken down. For example; did he do well purely because Mrs May ran such a bad campaign? In which case a different Conservative figure could deliver a stinging defeat at the next election. The same is true in reverse - did Mrs May just manage to cling on because of Corbyn's unpopularity? I have no doubt that Tony Blair, or even Gordon Brown, would have won that election handily, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not going to add anything remotely intellectual to this thread but need to express my complete amazement that the UK electorate is as twisted in knots as the US version. UK votes for Brexit, May stands for Brexit, May calls an election, terrorist attacks happen which would seemingly support the core pro-Brexit stance on security and immigration, and voila, people say eff it and vote her down. The other side of this is that no matter your opinion of Brexit it should've been crystal clear that a strong negotiating position is likely the most critical thing to the UK (since WWII??). In my view the UK electorate shot the left foot off with Brexit and now the right one yesterday. Whoever leads the country is now going to be entering negotiations with the EU horribly weakened.

I say you guys just go whole hog and put Boris in 10 Downing and send him to Brussels in a pink tutu to tell Juncker "hrrumpf hrrumpf hrrumpf, say no more old boy".

If you're a remainer, why would you vote for the Tories who caused this situation to begin with ?

Wanting a strong position could lead you to vote for Labour hoping they would get the majority and thus a strong position of their own.

wingman wrote:

I'm not going to add anything remotely intellectual to this thread but need to express my complete amazement that the UK electorate is as twisted in knots as the US version. UK votes for Brexit, May stands for Brexit, May calls an election, terrorist attacks happen which would seemingly support the core pro-Brexit stance on security and immigration, and voila, people say eff it and vote her down. The other side of this is that no matter your opinion of Brexit it should've been crystal clear that a strong negotiating position is likely the most critical thing to the UK (since WWII??). In my view the UK electorate shot the left foot off with Brexit and now the right one yesterday. Whoever leads the country is now going to be entering negotiations with the EU horribly weakened.

I say you guys just go whole hog and put Boris in 10 Downing and send him to Brussels in a pink tutu to tell Juncker "hrrumpf hrrumpf hrrumpf, say no more old boy".

While there are those with real, thought through, usually long term objections to the UK being in the EU, that vote last year was not really about an organisation few in the UK actually know about, thanks in no small part to a print media, the ones run by offshore tax dodgers being often the worst for reporting 'fake news' when it came to the EU, long before anyone else had heard of that term.
(Boris was actually sacked in the late 90's as Europe Correspondent of a highly EU hostile broadsheet paper because his made up tales about the EU were too much even for them).

Brexit would never have been won for Leave had many in the regions, who have long been neglected, by both main parties when in power, a chance to lash out. And immigration.
However, the Tories also used the EU as an excuse for some of their own policy failures.

Last night was the revenge of the 18-25 group most upset by Brexit, with a 72% turnout.
No party can ignore them anymore, after doubling the their turnout in two elections only two years apart.
One Tory candidate before the vote, sneered about them 'not getting off their arses to vote' so he wasn't concerned, not found who he is yet, I hope he lost. (He probably brought the Leave campaign line about that group's mere 32% turnout so stop crying and shut-up, actually it was 65% last year, another Leave lie).

The Sun on the day did an attempt at being funny, with advice for parents in stopping their kids from voting, which included LSD dosing, setting up fake polling stations and all couched in the Trump-ish terminology they imported because Rupert Murdoch told them to. (He apparently stormed out of the election event he was attending when the exit poll flashed up).

moo wrote:

Aesma wrote:

First by the post is not the most democratic system anyway.

Until we find a way to have all national decisions made with the input and consent of each and every member of the electorate, you are going to have similar issues with all systems.

This is the system we want to use.

When did you have a vote about it ?

In France, our system is far from perfect, but I know it can be changed, as it is tweaked regularly. It will probably happen again under president Macron.

vrbarreto wrote:

Not as good as Lord Buckethead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLghA7Wer6I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPvPKKyXOHo

And here is is at the count in the PM's own constituency, along with others that made the Prime Minister's seat declaration look like a Flaming Lips concert stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OScnCPzILCc

Makes you proud to be British!

Aesma wrote:

moo wrote:

Aesma wrote:

First by the post is not the most democratic system anyway.

Until we find a way to have all national decisions made with the input and consent of each and every member of the electorate, you are going to have similar issues with all systems.

This is the system we want to use.

When did you have a vote about it ?

In France, our system is far from perfect, but I know it can be changed, as it is tweaked regularly. It will probably happen again under president Macron.

2011. See: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/05/06/uk.vote/
I cannot fathom how the so-called 'Alternative Vote' works though.

KLDC10 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

moo wrote:

Until we find a way to have all national decisions made with the input and consent of each and every member of the electorate, you are going to have similar issues with all systems.

This is the system we want to use.

When did you have a vote about it ?

In France, our system is far from perfect, but I know it can be changed, as it is tweaked regularly. It will probably happen again under president Macron.

2011. See: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/05/06/uk.vote/
I cannot fathom how the so-called 'Alternative Vote' works though.

A better article on it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... ndum,_2011

The run up to the referendum covered a lot of stuff, including a second referendum on proportional representation should AV get the vote - the British people chose so overwhelmingly to stick with FPTP though that further plans were dropped, as PR doesnt work with FPTP (and the campaigning was on that basis).

AV is basically vote ranking - instead of "put yer X in the box", you ranked all the candidates in your order of choice - if no candidate won 50% of voters first choices, the candidate with the lowest count is dropped, and that candidates voters have their second choices applied. Repeat until either a candidate achieves a total of more than 50% or there is only one candidate left.

PR is unpopular in the UK because it removes the direct representation we enjoy currently - sure, it means UKIP can get 500,000 votes but no seats, while another party can end up with 10 seats from 250,000 votes, but thats a product of the system - putting up a lot of candidates and losing all the seats they stand for can certainly gain more votes than a handful of successful candidates in targeted areas.

Much too complicated. Who came up with that?

The German system is quite straightforward: One vote for the candidate in the constituency, one vote for the party. So half the parliament is made up of members elected in their constituency, the other half through candidates nominated by their respective parties on a state-wide list of candidates. The overall distribution of seats is according to the votes for the party. So the more candidates elected in their constituencies, the less candidates from the state-wide list will fill up the party's contingent in Parliament. As a result, the vote has a personal element but nevertheless guarantees that the popular vote is reflected in Parliament without 50 or 60 per cent of the votes being "wasted". Admittedly, it lacks a fun element like the UK system where prominent MPs / ministers can crash out of Parliament when not winning their constituency. In Germany, those big farts are protected through their party's list of candidates where they will be put pretty much on top.

I learned something.

You (we) could have an hybrid system like in Germany.

Aesma wrote:

I learned something.

You (we) could have an hybrid system like in Germany.

Meh, we like our current system

moo wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I learned something.

You (we) could have an hybrid system like in Germany.

Meh, we like our current system

First Past The Post works best when it is essentially between two large parties, post war that was from 1945-74, we saw how that eventually broke down in 2010, a trend that had been building up for years.
Last night did see a return to a dominant two party system, nearly, the SNP being reduced, the Lib Dems making only modest advances and nice to see the demolition of UKIP.
May thought she could get most of that UKIP vote, like so much else that did not go to plan either.

Theresa May wins the award for dumbest gal on the planet. She should have lost even higher given her abysmal campaigning. If this impedes a hard Brexit, I will join riots on the street.

aviationaware wrote:

Theresa May wins the award for dumbest gal on the planet. She should have lost even higher given her abysmal campaigning. If this impedes a hard Brexit, I will join riots on the street.

Like you were ever going to get your wish of a hard brexit

Aesma wrote:

I learned something.

You (we) could have an hybrid system like in Germany.

Old people don't understand such things. My grandmother never fails to vote and she's 84. I could explain the German system in the most simple way and she still wouldn't understand.

If anything needs reforming, it's the house of Lords. I don't understand how its survived so long in its current format. I guess with brexit and terrorist attacks becoming more frequent the issue gets buried.

I don't think a hard brexit is necessary. As long as free movement goes or a cap is placed things should run smooth. Chop and change a few laws. The NI border can stay and I'd be happy to see the UK pay for single market access. ( yes I know SM access means free movement of people before someone pulls that card out).

So DUP it is. What are they going to demand for their support? They seems to be ultra conservative on ethical matters.

Dutchy wrote:

So DUP it is. What are they going to demand for their support? They seems to be ultra conservative on ethical matters.

People are already pointing out that any agreement with the DUP puts the entire NI agreement in jeopardy, as the UK government is the mediator between the DUP and Sinn Fein in the NI Assembly - any agreement with the DUP would drastically alter the balance of power in NI.

That is how desperate Theresa May is...

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So DUP it is. What are they going to demand for their support? They seems to be ultra conservative on ethical matters.

People are already pointing out that any agreement with the DUP puts the entire NI agreement in jeopardy, as the UK government is the mediator between the DUP and Sinn Fein in the NI Assembly - any agreement with the DUP would drastically alter the balance of power in NI.

That is how desperate Theresa May is...

Nobody wants back the troubles, I hope.

i suspect that the DUP will want money for their support... Possibly the same amount that they would have lost from EU funded projects..

moo wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So DUP it is. What are they going to demand for their support? They seems to be ultra conservative on ethical matters.

People are already pointing out that any agreement with the DUP puts the entire NI agreement in jeopardy, as the UK government is the mediator between the DUP and Sinn Fein in the NI Assembly - any agreement with the DUP would drastically alter the balance of power in NI.

That is how desperate Theresa May is...

As SF haven't take up there 7 seats I don't think Con would really need the DUP that much.

As much as TM should reason I'm glad she hasn't. I don't want Dianne Abott anywhere near the government.

It's also nice to see NI getting some representatives in the government.

Even with SF not taking up their seats, Con are still 5 seats shy of a majority. Do you think the DUP give a rebate because not all of their 10 seats are needed...?

As for the DUP - good luck. Their MPs dispute climate change, want creationism be taught in schools, believe that HIV can only affect gay people, have described LGBT as disgusting, called for the re-introduction of the death penalty etc. etc. They sound like a shipload of nutjobs to me.

vfw614 wrote:

Even with SF not taking up their seats, Con are still 5 seats shy of a majority. Do you think the DUP give a rebate because not all of their 10 seats are needed...?

As for the DUP - good luck. Their MPs dispute climate change, want creationism be taught in schools, believe that HIV can only affect gay people, have described LGBT as disgusting, called for the re-introduction of the death penalty etc. etc. They sound like a shipload of nutjobs to me.

Yup, all those points sounds like they are nuts...........

moo wrote:

Olddog wrote:

An alliance with the DUP could lead to very funny Irish border Brexit negotiation

I don't get why people keep going on about the NI border and Brexit, because the *current* border has absolutely nothing at all to do with the EU - neither Ireland nor the UK are part of the Schengen area, and the border between Ireland and the UK is regulated by a non-EU treaty dating back nearly a hundred years - yes it does make that border an "external European Union border" but that doesnt actually change anything since neither country is part of Schengen, so customs and immigration is still done at the Schengen border on the continent!

Post-Brexit, the Common Travel Area between Ireland and the UK can easily remain - it existed before the EU, it can exist with us out of the EU.

With the CTA, non-Irish EU citizens will be able to enter the UK without immigration control through Ireland. And that's something the UK would like to stop with Brexit...or maybe not (who knows what the UK really wants ?).