The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit - End Game

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2
Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#16New Post! Dec 13, 2020 @ 22:52:49
Photographed outside a Glasgow pub at lunch time today:





The citizens of Glasgow are renowned for telling things like they really see them.
Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#17New Post! Dec 14, 2020 @ 18:18:04
And after another long session in the "Last Chance Saloon", it seems nothing has been decided and so another deadline passes and another round of negotiations is going on.

Today's Daily Express claims that Britain has made a breakthrough in getting the EU to accept Britain's "Sovereignty" but that claim isn't being repeated by anybody in government. But it will bolster the morale of the DE's readership. Tsk.

Sophie Ridge (journalist) pointed out on Sky News that if there had been any sort of breakthrough, she would have expected to see a lot more to-ing and fro-ing on both sides today, with contacts being made and people hurrying to offices and meeting rooms, but none of that has taken place. The Daily Express may have picked up a whisper of some kind from somebody... possibly being mischievous with the press..... and they've run with it. Nobody is getting their hopes up.

The current line of thinking is that nothing has changed except for the attitude of the British government who are going into overdrive on blaming the EU for stalling the talks. As often happens with these things, the Tory press is running a parallel campaign of vilification of EU leaders, likening Angela Merkel's part in the negotiations to "Kristalnacht", the Nazi pogrom of 1938.

When Merkel was told of this she replied quite coolly "Ahhh, it's nice to be informed of this. I'm not getting involved in the negotiations at all."

She's a sassy girl, Mrs Merkel and she's shot the British press down in one classy riposte. After all, didn't she refuse to take Boris Johnson's call last week, and again yesterday..?

EU National Leaders aren't involved in the negotiations. That's what the negotiating team is there for. They negotiate on behalf of all 27 member states and individual leaders stay out of it so that they can't be accused of attempting to gain an unfair influence to benefit their own country.

Downing Street is now suspected of deliberately trying to appear to be trying hard (hence Johnson's highly publicised phone calls that he knows Merkel and Macron can't and won't take) while at the same time not doing anything to progress the situation one bit. In this way, he runs down the clock to 1 January and will no doubt claim that it would all have gone perfectly had it not been for those beastly Europeans giving him everything he wanted for nothing in return.

It would be an added bonus for him if the EU were to get fed up with it all and just say "That's it, It's no deal. We're not going to be messed around any more." Then Johnson would be able to claim that the EU killed the talks because they wanted to punish Britain.

You have to understand the levels of dishonesty and dirty tricks that the British government will resort to. They know Brexit is going to be a disaster so they have to try to find a way to pin all the blame on the EU. Nothing must be allowed to stick to Boris Johnson.

And so we are where we are. Another "final" deadline has come and gone.

It will almost be a relief when 1 January gets here.
Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#18New Post! Dec 16, 2020 @ 06:38:18
To understand the choices Boris Johnson makes when he reaches a fork in the road, it helps to imagine the speeches he might draft in praise of each path. The story goes that back in 2016, when he was unsure whether to come out for or against Brexit, Johnson drafted two contradictory newspaper articles. The first made his case to join the remain campaign, the other to join vote leave. he preferred the sound of himself as a leaver.

The tune was catchier in those days. It was the "oompah freedom march", and Johnson sang the lead. Now he is prime minister and Brexit is a cacophony of customs declarations and standards certifications, of lorry parks and portaloos turning the garden of England into a public toilet. The compromise required to keep healthy relations with Brussels does not harmonise with the Eurosceptic dirge of pure sovereignty.

Time is running out to complete the free-trade deal that might enact those compromises. Even with a deal there is a shock coming when transitional arrangements expire on 1 January. The shock will be doubled if negotiations collapse. The border is not ready and there will be no goodwill on the European Union side to ease Britain’s administrative shambles..... no flexibility from them as the UK struggles with the bureaucracy it voted to impose on itself. It's the difference between a hard landing and a crash landing.

Although the only kind of deal left is a paltry one, Johnson could still pitch it in heroic terms. The doomsters have been proved wrong, he would gloat. They said it would take 10 years; we did it in 10 months. Now we lay down the sword of strife and beat it into a ploughshare for the fertile soil of global trade...... yada, yada, yada......

The opposite speech would also come easily to Johnson’s lips: a deal, alas, has not been reached. We extended a friendly hand but Brussels wanted to put it in the chains of regulatory bondage. Our sovereignty is not for sale. Choppy waters ahead but our vessel is sturdy and we have the wind of liberty at our back ....... waffle, flannel, piffle....

An audit of economic and strategic national interests points the prime minister to the first of those scenarios. But there are other factors in the equation for Downing Street. The limits of tolerable compromise are set by fundamentalist Eurosceptic doctrine and fear of a Conservative party that is already getting nervous because of the government’s mishandling of COVID-19.

Fishing quotas and coronavirus regulations might not seem related, but both ignite fury on the Tory backbenches. Johnson could do without having to fight two fires at once. But through incompetence and supercilious neglect, Johnson has alienated so many of his MPs that even an 80-seat majority is no cushion against Commons defeat. That vulnerability could tempt him to embrace an almighty row with Brussels. He would not be the first Tory leader to follow the advice of Shakespeare’s Henry IV and “keep giddy minds busy with foreign quarrels”

That path looks less attractive in light of Donald Trump’s defeat in the US presidential election. Joe Biden saw Brexit as a strategic error from the start and sees Johnson as Trumps acolyte. The significant problem in the dim view that Biden takes of Johnson’s disregard for international law, as was apparent in the Internal Market Bill which repudiated the Northern Ireland protocol of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. The new president-elect sees that as sabotage of the Good Friday agreement, which is a really serious issue in the eyes of any Democrat and worse, it's a personal insult to a Democratic Irish-American who takes his ancestry seriously.

Trump was an enemy of the European project, so his downfall makes Brexit a lonelier adventure in the world. It raises the cost of failure to agree a deal in Brussels. Johnson would quickly be embroiled in a row over Irish border obligations. Washington would take Dublin’s side as the underdog, being bullied by a Britain it is increasingly seeing as a rogue state.

Gone is the idea that a quick US trade deal will make up for the loss of access to EU markets. (The numbers never added up on that proposition, but Brexiters believed in it) Instead, completing a European deal becomes the prerequisite for getting talks in Washington back on track. That is a point that No 10 might use to bring ERG fanatics on board over any compromises Johnson makes in Brussels. The line will be that imperfect accommodation with the EU is the ordeal Britain must endure to fulfil its Holy Grail Quest for a US deal.

The EU is heartened by Trump’s defeat and sees a chastened, friendless Britain that has little room left for manoeuvre and seems unable to choreograph some face-saving concession for Johnson. But when now it is apparent that Brussels is dictating terms, the Tory leader feels cornered and is switching to combat mode. He is not afraid of a messy Brexit, but the real outcome he most wants to avoid is one where the mess is - rightly - recognised as being all his fault. Even with a deal, the border situation will not look pretty. There will be no upside, except from the claim that it could have been even worse.

By contrast, the no-deal scenario provides a lever for - wrongly - offloading blame on to the Europeans.

That might play well with some of Johnson's most loyal supporters, but there is also a downside to the war of recrimination if talks fail. It would be the more spectacular story, propelling Brexit higher up the agenda and keeping it there longer. The whole thing would too obviously have been "done" in flagrant breach of promise that won Johnson the election last year.

He does not want any more of his time in office consumed by Europe, and he has used up all of his Blitz spirit on the pandemic. You can only go to the well so many times before it runs dry.

One year after his election victory, he would surely rather declare “mission accomplished” than face the country with yet more excuses, warnings of turbulence ahead and pleas for stoic forbearance. Whichever path he takes, the priority will be deflecting attention from the fact that there are no good options left, because sensible exits were missed......... or deliberately ignored....... along the road.

The prime minister has two lenses for looking at Brexit. He can focus on busking through a current crisis, or he can gaze on a distant horizon of closer ties with Europe from outside the EU. It is a choice of either getting through the day, or getting to the moon. He has no view of the middle-distance, where leaving the EU is a task of responsible government.

That leaves Britain without any meaningful policy for a future relationship with the rest of Europe. Expressing one would require some admission of diplomatic and economic gravity, and denial of those forces is too fundamental to Eurosceptic mythology. That will not change, regardless of whether the current negotiations result in compromise or collapse in acrimony.

There are two very different speeches forming in Johnson’s mind right now. Neither of them contains the truth.
Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#19New Post! Dec 20, 2020 @ 14:13:10
Division In The Tory Party Over Any Possible Brexit Deal

After British negotiators demanded that the EU make "Significant concessions" earlier in the week - a demand the EU seems to be unwilling to meet, it seems that even if any deal is struck it could meet opposition from within the Conservative Party itself.

A number of ERG members have declared that they will vote against the government if they don't get 100% of everything they want - in other words, their idea of a "pure" Brexit.

More than 30 ERG members are likely to reject the party whip. At the moment, this wouldn't be enough to make the vote fail, but it wouldn't take too many more to join them to do it.

And this is the position we're in. The Conservative party is demanding "Significant concessions", but elements within the Tory party are demanding that the EU surrenders unconditionally.

I can't see that happening.

And so we either get a no-deal, or if by some miracle a way is found to put a deal before Parliament, there is a strong risk that it wouldn't pass through the house.

And now there are only 11 days remaining.

I always said this was going to be a horrible mess. If only a "horrible mess" is all it was.
Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#20New Post! Dec 23, 2020 @ 22:27:42
Rumour abounds that a deal between the EU and Britain is about to be announced. We don't know what is in it yet, but Johnson is preparing an announcement tonight.

This will be only a draft text at this stage and it will have to go through the various stages of ratification


Draft Text of Brexit Agreement To Be Announced Tonight

Even when the draft text is agreed and formalised into a document, it has to be accepted by Parliament (that's in the bag) and the EU (not quite so certain unless the French are happy with fish).

snip:

A Brexit deal is reportedly "done", with negotiators David Frost and Michel Barnier now agreeing on the final text.

According to the Daily Mail's Jason Grove, UK government sources believe it will be "highly unlikely" talks will collapse now.

RTE's Tony Connelly claims that there was a last-minute "instrumental" development on fish.

“The British have made huge concessions in the negotiations in the past 48 hours,” a French official told Reuters.


Fish was always going to be the final dealbreaker. Britain has already conceded on the Northern Ireland problem by withdrawing the illegal elements of the Internal Market Bill, but there is still uncertainty over the level playing field. This should be made clearer once the text is released for public consumption.

For now, it seems Britain is pulling back from the brink of absolute disaster.... but let's wait and see what it says.
Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#21New Post! Dec 30, 2020 @ 19:07:21
Bad News For British Financial Institutions


snip:

“It’s not the start of the end of London, but it’s pretty bloody embarrassing and a huge own goal for Britain,” said Aquis’ Haynes.
dookie On 36 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#22New Post! Dec 31, 2020 @ 12:24:11
Well, not really the end game. Merely another bubble within Reality. After the Withdrawal Deal was rushed through with little scrutiny - this given as the reason by Number 10 for the need to unilaterally trash it a few months later - the eventual Trade Deal was rushed through Parliament, the "heart of British democracy" - in 5 hours flat. 2000 pages and don't read the small print.

What analysis there has been reveals that the Deal is in fact poorer than the one agreed by Theresa May, our previous PM. A deal that was trashed and voted down by those who yesterday heralded its successor as the new dawn of a golden age. Bill Cash, an old eurosceptic veteran, spoke of Boris Johnson as the new Churchill. Reports that he actually experienced two orgasms while speaking have yet to be confirmed.

To be honest, I have never heard such a load of bilge in all my life - whether self-deception or an attempt to deceive the general public, such pure twaddle is hard to credit from our so called "leaders".

The chimera of so called "sovereignty" is thrown about by our pathetic little englanders. The reality is that both France and Germany have as perfect a sovereignty as is achievable in our inter-connected and inter-dependent world, where mutual support and co-operation are the true touchstones.

The only true "sovereignty" rests in the individual. This in fact is known by those behind all things Brexit. Read


HERE

for the background to the whole miserable saga.

As can be seen, such individuals know the reality. The son of one of the authors of the book cited, Jacob Rees-Mogg, an arch-brexiteer, has moved the assets of his own Investment Company from the UK to Dublin. Yes, he believes in Free Movement, but of money, not people. Those such as him must truly laugh out of their a*******s at the average Leave voter who felt "left behind" by "the establishment". "We can now address this" says Boris - as if a new Trade Deal which actually curtails totally frictionless trade for one costing businesses an extra £7bn a year in expenditure and needing 50,000 new pen-pushers to cope with the new documentation offers any such "opportunity" that was not there before! The mind simply boggles at the deceit!

And don't mention the fish!!!

Obviously, the stateless individualism of the Brexiteers has nothing to do with the genuine individualism of our Faith Traditions. In Buddhism, a true "sovereignty" of self.The goal of the Holy Life, "unshakeable deliverance of mind", this aligned with the bodhisattva ideal of selflessness for the sake of ALL.

The Brexiteer "sovereignty" is bogus.
dookie On 36 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#23New Post! Dec 31, 2020 @ 16:37:08
A final word......Looking back, history is often simply the story of how those born into positions of power, wealth and influence have sought to maintain their hold upon all three. The last 1000 years of British history tells of the slow rise of the "common folk" seeking some degree of self-determination, some share of the natural wealth of our world. The idea of "democracy" has gained ground these past couple of hundred years, the franchise extended and with it what can only be seen as the illusion of the "power of the people". "Illusion" simply because the true power brokers find ever new ways of maintaining their own interests and positions of privilege. In my opinion Brexit has opened up a new vista in the machinations, wiles and stratagems of these power brokers, in as much as they have managed to gain and manipulate the support of those who will eventually lose most. That is the tragedy.
Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#24New Post! Jan 08, 2021 @ 14:16:39
Interesting comments on the historical "illusion" (your word). You may have a point regarding the last 1000 years, although in 1021, I believe the country was still under Norman rule. Henry I (Plantagenet) became King in 1100, after the reign of King Stephen and his ongoing war with the She Wolf of England, Matilda led to "The Anarchy". So perhaps 1000 years isn't quite accurate.

The prevailing social structure at that time was serfdom and it would remain so until Magna Carta was signed in 1215..... and even that took time to kick in. So there wasn't a great deal of democracy around.

Be that as it may.

What I'm saying is that I broadly agree that perceptions of people power have developed slowly over time, but Brexit is a specific event and I think the roots of the current wave of English Nationalism have their roots in events closer to our time.

Now, we all know that Britain completed the process of quitting the European Union, a major act of foreign policy that most of the world finds bewildering, and considers ill-advised, less than a fortnight ago.

I think it's more due to a flaw in the character of modern day England which has been ruthlessly exploited by Conservative governments since 2010.

The real dead giveaway was the remark last month by Education Secretary Gavin Williamson, who in my opinion possesses the fiercely contested distinction of being the most useless member of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s cabinet. But I'm now in teaching so I'm biased

Asked why Britain had been the first nation to authorise a Covid-19 vaccine, he compared the quality of U.S. and European scientists and regulators, then said, “We’re a much better country than every single one of them, aren’t we?”

This underpinned, for me, almost everything since 1945 that Britain has done, has been carried out with a belief among the post-war generations that we are special, different, important. Many middle-sized nations cherish this conceit in some degree — think of France — but few allow it to influence their political courses as doggedly as the British "Baby Boomers" of the 1945-1960 generations.

World War II still dominates British self-image. I am sometimes driven to despair by the English determination to preserve nationalistic myths about it, rather than to acknowledge harsh realities. The phrase “Grand Alliance,” coined by Churchill, fitted the glorious, largely fictional pageant of which he became the most influential literary begetter, through his six-volume history of the conflict.

In truth, the US, Britain and the Soviet Union waged war with very different objectives, and emerged in much different conditions. The US was an indisputable victor, and the only one to emerge from the war in a vastly strengthened economic condition.

Russia suffered unspeakable human losses — 27 million dead, against fewer than half a million each for the US and Britain — but the capture of Berlin enabled the Communist leadership to claim its only unequivocal national success of the Communist era (with the possible exception of the 1957 launch of the Sputnik satellite and other early successes in the space race until the US got its act together).

Britain, meanwhile, was financially ruined by the war, which also rang the tocsin for the empire. Yet no postwar event or success, including attainment of a modern standard of living that would seem sybaritic to our fathers and grandfathers, has matched the magic, in national folklore, of our lone 1940-41 defiance of the Nazis. Modern Brexiteers warm to King George VI’s foolish remark to his mother, after France surrendered, that he was happier that “we have no allies to be polite to and to pamper.”

Churchill himself saw absolutely nothing glorious about Britain’s isolation. Before the French acknowledged defeat, he made the desperate, hopeless gesture of offering their prime minister, Paul Reynaud, “indissoluble political union” between the two countries, if only France would fight on.

Most of the British upper class despised Americans almost as much as they did Continentals. Their prime minister was among the few who sincerely respected the US (being half American himself, on his mother's side). He recognized that victory over Hitler was unattainable without American belligerence.

A middle-class Londoner named Vere Hodgson wrote in her wartime diary, acknowledging a debt to the prime minister’s half-American parentage, “Had he been pure English aristocracy he would not have been able to lead in the way he has.” She recognized that many of Churchill’s fellow members of the upper class regarded him as vulgar, but she observed wisely: “We need more than good manners to save Britain at this particular moment.”

Churchill himself wrote of the night following Pearl Harbour, when he knew that America was in the war, “I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.”

Wartime opinion surveys nonetheless showed the British far less enthusiastic about their transatlantic allies than was the prime minister, and still in love with their vision of plucky little Britain, crying defiance from the White Cliffs of Dover.

Richard Weight, author of a 2002 study of the modern British search for identity, has written of the wartime era that many politicians, poets, historians and newspapers drew explicit parallels with the Elizabethan and Napoleonic eras: “They portrayed Hitler as the latest in a long line of jumped-up, power-crazed Continental dictators, and they emphasized the unshakeable continuity of ‘the island story.’

What is remarkable is not that this thesis exercised such power over British imaginations in 1940, but that it continues to do so 80 years later. A year or two ago, I heard of a story about a historian who lamented to a friend in the House of Lords, of the xenophobia at the heart of the Brexit movement. It is extraordinary, he said, that the British should regard foreigners with such disdain.

His Lordship gave a theatrical sigh and said: “Dear boy, they always have done.”

In an important study of Britain’s relationship with the EU published in 1998, the journalist Hugo Young, himself a passionate European, wrote of Conservative Party antics: “The world they defended seemed … to be nostalgic and narrow; assailed by demons, racked by existential confusion. They were incapable of absorbing the possibility that Europe, by immensely strengthening the postwar local economies, might have been the making of the nation-state in the modern world.”

Almost half a century ago, in 1973, the British people reluctantly acquiesced in joining the then EEC only because they had exhausted all other possibilities of extending their influence abroad. While UK governments enjoyed close relationships with Washington, none doubted that we were immeasurably subordinate to the US (still are, and will be more so due to Brexit).

When Britain’s empire was lost, it sought instead to sustain global reach through mastery of the Commonwealth, to which most of its former colonies and dominions belonged. This institution has proved to possess a ritual significance which pleases the Queen, its official head, but has yielded only marginal economic benefits and negligible political ones.

Many in the British government hesitantly accepted the notion of joining Europe because they deluded themselves that they could dominate it. They failed to recognize that relative British economic weakness, measured against Germany’s ascent and France’s recovery, would make this impossible.

In the 21st century, the anti-European faction was transformed into a mass movement by immigration, which a majority of the British people oppose.
Yet an irony, still little understood by most of the public, is that leaving Europe will do nothing to curb immigration from beyond the continent, which continues to surge. Net migration from EU countries to Britain has fallen dramatically, to 58,000 last year, and will presumably fall further as EU citizens lose their right to live and work here. Meanwhile, between March 2019 and March 2020, 316,000 non-EU migrants arrived in Britain, and absolutely nothing about Brexit, or any half-baked and unworkable points system will empower Britain to reduce this figure.

The great political success of the Brexiteers is that they have convinced a narrow majority of the British people that most of their woes, even the weather, derive from Europe. In truth, scarcely any do, but foreigners make convenient scapegoats.

There are close similarities between the tribal attitude of President Donald Trump’s supporters in the U.S. and Johnson supporters in Britain. Both see themselves, above all, as patriots.

Both have lost faith in their respective nations’ traditional governing establishments, and in the collectivist principles upon which they have based our respective nations’ foreign policies. Hugo Young once described Europe as “the graveyard where the reputations of the British political class lay buried.”

Just as in the US where many of society’s “haves” support Donald Trump from economic self-interest, so in Britain a spoiled, rich minority has formed an unexpected alliance with humbler Brexiteers, because its members are privileged enough to be personally impervious to the national economic cost of Brexit. They share the “have-nots” dislike of the Continent, save as a holiday destination.

Some of us have always believed that partnership with Europe, despite all its imperfections, offers our nation’s only plausible future, while isolation represents bondage to a mummified past. But we have lost the argument, because the WWII heritage vision still exercises extraordinary power over many British people, especially elderly white people.

Though they might not quote Shakespeare from memory, their guiding spirit is that of the lines about England — as it then was — attributed to John of Gaunt in “Richard II”:

This happy breed of men, this little world
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands....

It is pretty potty, of course, that a lower-ranking offshore island, with little indigenous industrial capacity, should aspire to condescend to other nations. But the French social historian Francois Bedarida, who possessed a deep understanding of the British displayed in several books, was not wrong when he wrote a generation ago that “the train of prejudice” against France ran through British souls, and was “still on the rails.”

Many British people, at the onset of 2021, still sincerely suppose that, because we were on the winning side in 1918 and 1945, while most Continental nations were humiliated or shamed, we are superior beings.

Michael Howard observed after the 2016 Brexit referendum: “We shall be condemned to become global harlots, doing business with any regime that will accommodate us, however unpleasant.”

Some commentators believe that the British will henceforward experience a slow, painful awakening. More likely, in my view, however, is that most will not notice our decline in wealth, relative to what we might have enjoyed had we retained membership of the EU.

The issue of Europe has not merely poisoned Britain’s politics, but induced a drugged stupor in many of its people. They have embraced a nostalgic vision that some of us fear will deny us a stake in the most important and exciting things the world will achieve in the years ahead. We have voted to become a theme park.

I wrote a couple of years ago that if Johnson achieved his ambition to become prime minister, Britain would forsake any claim to be regarded as a serious country. Nothing has happened since then to change my mind.
dookie On 36 minutes ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#25New Post! Jan 08, 2021 @ 16:53:15
Hi Jen.... I tend to reduce things to broad brushstrokes, fundamentals. Whether right or wrong, from there the specifics find a place. I see my original analysis as basically correct. I find little wrong with your specifics. Yet as far as specifics go, we would need to know the minds of each and every unique human being.

Speaking of specifics, of course.........Norman "rule" began 1066. Henry 1 PRECEDED Stephen (and Matilda, waltzing or not) It was HENRY 11 who followed Stephen.

Jennifer1984 On about 13 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#26New Post! Jan 08, 2021 @ 17:16:41
@dookie Said

Hi Jen.... I tend to reduce things to broad brushstrokes, fundamentals. Whether right or wrong, from there the specifics find a place. I see my original analysis as basically correct. I find little wrong with your specifics. Yet as far as specifics go, we would need to know the minds of each and every unique human being.

Speaking of specifics, of course.........Norman "rule" began 1066. Henry 1 PRECEDED Stephen (and Matilda, waltzing or not) It was HENRY 11 who followed Stephen.




You are correct sir, and I confess my typo. Henry II's reign was agreed by Stephen and Matilda as the succession to him after his death. Matilda gave up her claim to the throne conditional on her son Henry succeeding him.

I do confess to a certain enjoyment in going into things in more depth. You may have noticed.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Gaming
Sun Dec 08, 2013 @ 01:39
9 576
New posts   Gaming
Thu Mar 03, 2011 @ 15:27
6 923
New posts   Random
Mon Aug 01, 2016 @ 15:31
75 3282
New posts   Random
Fri Jan 15, 2010 @ 11:39
34 1097
New posts   Gaming
Wed Sep 20, 2006 @ 03:12
78 4463