England with its brexit and its inept reactions have fucked the life of 11,000 hauliers MOST of which whom will never take a job delivering to england for at least a year. I have listened to 20 I know

"we were pushed to places, we had no choice, argument was met by threat of arrest. We had no food, no dignity, we were forced back into cabins if we tried to leave. They had dogs and tasers. "
Not one driver blames anyone but the british. many have been talking to their national governments and most have been told they will receive compensation.
They are saying "we are told to be in a driver zoo, no facilities, afraid, no lights, who is around my truck ? this country is like Russia.

More from Brexit

Two excellent questions at the end of a very sensible thread summarising the post-Brexit UK FP debate. My own take at attempting to offer an answer - ahead of the IR is as follow:


1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:

A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;

3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;

5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;

You May Also Like