Enclave delays It has since been, to use another current term, “de-dramatised”, just as ours was in the 1990s. Thousands of people move back and forth daily for work and pleasure. But what has been de-dramatised can always be re-dramatised at a moment’s notice.
When I drove out of Gibraltar last Sunday afternoon, passport at the ready, there were actually no checks at all. But the driver, Chris, an English expat who lives on the Costa del Sol and ferries passengers to and from the enclave all the time, said that there have been times when he has been delayed for 5½ hours at the border and the queues of cars and trucks have snaked all the way around the Rock.
As recently as 2013, there was a serous diplomatic incident when the British government accused Spain of conducting “excessive” searches of vehicles at the Gibraltar border and “torturing” travellers. Contested borders will never be entirely “frictionless”. They will always be political pressure points.
The other way in which Gibraltar resonates with Northern Ireland is, of course, in its Britishness and more specifically in what it says about the relationship between Britishness and Brexitness. The DUP and many of its supporters would undoubtedly see the Gibraltarians as political kith and kin: doughty defenders of a British identity under siege.
But while the DUP not only campaigned for Brexit but has aligned itself with the Rees-Moggian ultras, the Gibraltarians take a radically different view of their interests. A Soviet-style 96 per cent of them voted against it in the 2016 referendum. And the tone you hear from Gibraltar’s government and officials is calm, pragmatic, carefully focused on limiting the damage and getting the best possible outcome.
Joe Bossano, aka Sir Joseph Bossano KCMG, is probably one of the best negotiators alive. He has been a huge figure in the life of Gibraltar for the last 50 years, first as a ferocious labour organiser, agitator and founder of the Socialist Labour Party, and later as chief minister of the territory.
He led dockworkers and seamen to victory in a four-year-long campaign of strikes and blockades to win pay parity with their British counterparts. He has dealt with successive British governments, with Spanish antagonism, and with the EU. He is a dedicated Marxist who negotiated with international capitalists to turn Gibraltar into a haven for their money and used the proceeds to subside public housing and free university education.
‘Three possibilities’ At 79, he is still minister for economic development and when I had dinner with him last Saturday night he said he plans to stand for re-election next year.
Given all of this, I asked him what he thought about the Brexit negotiations. His answer is the best short summary I’ve yet heard: “There were only three possibilities. One was the status quo, which the British have decided they don’t want.
“The second is something better than the status quo, which the EU can’t possibly give them. And the third is something worse than the status quo, but since the status quo was not acceptable to you, something worse than the status quo couldn’t be acceptable either.
“It is quite simple: if you enter into a negotiation in which all of your options are impossible, you can’t win.”
If you leave aside his Marxism and his atheism – admittedly rather a lot for the DUP to leave aside – Bossano has much in common with the DUP. Gibraltar is an iconic outpost of Britishness, and he is one of the people who have fought to keep it that way. Like the DUP, he has often been more British than British governments, driving them crazy with his hardline resistance to any compromise with Spain on the issue of sovereignty. Like the DUP, he has also insisted on local self-government.
When you see the steps of the main passageway up the Rock from the old town of Gibraltar painted in the colours and form of the union jack, like kerbstones in loyalist estates, you don’t have to stretch too far for the connections.
Room to retreat And, astonishingly, Joe Bossano tells me that he spent his early childhood in, of all places, the Paisleyite heartland of Ballymena. During the second World War, the British rather ruthlessly evacuated the civilian population of Gibraltar to Britain. Joe’s family ended up living in a Nissen hut in what was effectively a refugee camp in Co Antrim. Back in Gibraltar, he was briefly educated by the Irish Christian Brothers before, as he puts it, “we parted by mutual agreement”.
He became a deckhand in the merchant navy, moved to West Ham in London’s East End and joined the Seaman’s Union. He learned his negotiating skills the hard way, dealing with ship owners in a very rough industry.
Which brings us back to Brexit. “When you are going in to a negotiation,” he says, “the most important thing you need to know is: what happens if I fail? You must have a way out – you try to get what you want but if that’s not possible, you have to be able to retreat and fight another day.”
In a week when the Irish Border continued to bedevil Brexit and British politics was resounding with the drama of “humiliation” and demands for “respect”, it was all the more poignant, watching the sun go down over the Rock, to be reminded of such solid advice from a veteran fighter for Britishness: don’t go into talks when there is no good outcome and always leave yourself a way out.
In this outpost of empire, the natives knew something the mother country had forgotten.
“There were only three possibilities. One was the status quo, which the British have decided they don’t want.
“The second is something better than the status quo, which the EU can’t possibly give them. And the third is something worse than the status quo, but since the status quo was not acceptable to you, something worse than the status quo couldn’t be acceptable either.
“It is quite simple: if you enter into a negotiation in which all of your options are impossible, you can’t win.”
“There were only three possibilities. One was the status quo, which the British have decided they don’t want.
“The second is something better than the status quo, which the EU can’t possibly give them. And the third is something worse than the status quo, but since the status quo was not acceptable to you, something worse than the status quo couldn’t be acceptable either.
“It is quite simple: if you enter into a negotiation in which all of your options are impossible, you can’t win.”
If we were sufficiently important to the EU for them to give us what we want out of fear of losing our money, then Brexit would be a positive. But despite many on the Brexit side of the argument telling us the negotiations would be straightforward and the EU would give us everything we want, that has clearly not been the case. Anybody with half a brain could have predicted that.
I feel very angry about remainers telling us we voted and it is failing democracy to vote again, when what the people voted for was based on lies. Why are they so scared about another referendum? They know why? It is because they think they will now lose it now people have a better idea where Brexit will leave us. It can never be undemocratic to ask the people again, they have the opportunity to give the same response!
If we were sufficiently important to the EU for them to give us what we want out of fear of losing our money, then Brexit would be a positive. But despite many on the Brexit side of the argument telling us the negotiations would be straightforward and the EU would give us everything we want, that has clearly not been the case. Anybody with half a brain could have predicted that.
I feel very angry about remainers telling us we voted and it is failing democracy to vote again, when what the people voted for was based on lies. Why are they so scared about another referendum? They know why? It is because they think they will now lose it now people have a better idea where Brexit will leave us. It can never be undemocratic to ask the people again, they have the opportunity to give the same response!
By the same token, should we have a Scottish independence reference every 18 months? Just to keep our finger on the pulse of what the people want?
If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?
In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?
In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.
This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
Why not have one every year? Maybe we can swap one of the May bank holidays for a new one in say early November - Referendum Day.
I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
Whenever parliament formulates a policy which needs ratifying by the population?
I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
I take your point on this Stu but have to take issue with the overall picture. Back in 2016 we the people were offered the simplistic choice of in or out. After two years of wrangling and insight it’s now absolutely clear that the vote question was flawed because even at this point only months from the door nobody and that’s 100% nobody understands what out means. I think it’s fair to say that it’s now very likely that a second vote would reverse the first purely because this time around people have more information both on the consequences abd on the mistruths which admittedly both sides were guilty of. This moment in this islands history and future is so important it’s surely better to make sure that our next actions are genuinely a reflection of peoples informed vote.
If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?
In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.
This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
'By their behaviour'? Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything? Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU. There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?
In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.
This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
'By their behaviour'? Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything? Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU. There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
I really think this perception of events is based purely on the leave campaigns “they need us more than we need them”. People who bought into that fail to see that it was a lie then and a lie now.
I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
If the referendum was a bad idea first time round it is a terrible one second time round.
If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?
In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.
This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
'By their behaviour'? Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything? Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU. There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
What are my proposals? It's not my job to come up with proposals. All I had to do was vote in a referendum. There really is no need for me to do anything more than that.
See how helpful I'm being? About as helpful as the EU.
I agree the referendum shouldn't have been used in the first place, but it was. We now have to deal with the consequences of that. If it was clear that another referendum would only re-affirm the same result, I am not daft enough to think there would be a call for one. But the reason there is a call, is Remain think enough people have changed their minds. For me, the only way you can fix the issue caused by a referendum, is have another one and hope enough people agree.
When would we have the 3rd, 4th and 5th referendums?
Hopefully never - but I would say when there is a clear appetite to leave the EU at some point in the future, you could see there being a third. Anyway why not forget about the third or fourth and focus on the second?
If they voted to leave and it looked like they changed their mind the answer is yes of course there should be another vote. Not so much every 18 months, but prefereably before they left the UK. As long as they can re-affirm their initial vote - what is wrong with that?
In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
We live in Parliamentary representative democracy. Referendums should be used sparingly, if at all. We elect MPs to make decisions. The referendum was advisory, not binding. Our elected MPs have chosen to act on the advice of the referendum. At 52/48 they could quite easily have said - this is too close a margin to make such a decision but we will explore the Leave options further and seek reform in the EU otherwise - a leave vote in their back pocket would have been a powerful weapon. Do what politicians love to do, kick the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with.
This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
'By their behaviour'? Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything? Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU. There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
What are my proposals? It's not my job to come up with proposals. All I had to do was vote in a referendum. There really is no need for me to do anything more than that.
See how helpful I'm being? About as helpful as the EU.
Sorry, I wasn't asking you, Missed it, for proposals, I was riffing on the notion that the EU asks the UK for proposals.
In fairness to the Sunday Sport, they have taken a quote from Professor Dale Higgins of the Population Research Working Party and extrapolated the essence of their article directly from that quote. Yes, there are a few errors that have crept in. But broadly, the story is accurate.
Apart from the fact that Dale Higgins didn't say any of the things attributed to him and doesn't work for the Population Research Working Party. Partly because he isn't a professor. But mainly because it doesn't exist.
In fact, the only factual part of the story is that there is a man called Dale Higgins. He's currently serving a prison sentence for people smuggling. A man who attempted to smuggle an illegal immigrant into the UK through the Channel Tunnel in his car boot has been jailed. Dale Higgins, 36, was stopped by Border Force officers at the tunnel entrance in Coquelles, France, who found a man curled-up inside the boot of his Audi A4. Higgins claimed he had been to Amsterdam for the day to do some drinking and gambling.
Isn't it a satire on project fear? Or am I giving the Sunday sport unwanted credit
I was thinking that. But now I think maybe it is a strategy (Leave.EU? Putin?) to plant really outlandish Brexit scare stories in the press over the next 6 months so Brexiteers can start trying to dismiss genuine negative Brexit stories by association.
Isn't it a satire on project fear? Or am I giving the Sunday sport unwanted credit
I was thinking that. But now I think maybe it is a strategy (Leave.EU? Putin?) to plant really outlandish Brexit scare stories in the press over the next 6 months so Brexiteers can start trying to dismiss genuine negative Brexit stories by association.
Comments
Enclave delays
It has since been, to use another current term, “de-dramatised”, just as ours was in the 1990s. Thousands of people move back and forth daily for work and pleasure. But what has been de-dramatised can always be re-dramatised at a moment’s notice.
When I drove out of Gibraltar last Sunday afternoon, passport at the ready, there were actually no checks at all. But the driver, Chris, an English expat who lives on the Costa del Sol and ferries passengers to and from the enclave all the time, said that there have been times when he has been delayed for 5½ hours at the border and the queues of cars and trucks have snaked all the way around the Rock.
As recently as 2013, there was a serous diplomatic incident when the British government accused Spain of conducting “excessive” searches of vehicles at the Gibraltar border and “torturing” travellers. Contested borders will never be entirely “frictionless”. They will always be political pressure points.
The other way in which Gibraltar resonates with Northern Ireland is, of course, in its Britishness and more specifically in what it says about the relationship between Britishness and Brexitness. The DUP and many of its supporters would undoubtedly see the Gibraltarians as political kith and kin: doughty defenders of a British identity under siege.
But while the DUP not only campaigned for Brexit but has aligned itself with the Rees-Moggian ultras, the Gibraltarians take a radically different view of their interests. A Soviet-style 96 per cent of them voted against it in the 2016 referendum. And the tone you hear from Gibraltar’s government and officials is calm, pragmatic, carefully focused on limiting the damage and getting the best possible outcome.
Joe Bossano, aka Sir Joseph Bossano KCMG, is probably one of the best negotiators alive. He has been a huge figure in the life of Gibraltar for the last 50 years, first as a ferocious labour organiser, agitator and founder of the Socialist Labour Party, and later as chief minister of the territory.
He led dockworkers and seamen to victory in a four-year-long campaign of strikes and blockades to win pay parity with their British counterparts. He has dealt with successive British governments, with Spanish antagonism, and with the EU. He is a dedicated Marxist who negotiated with international capitalists to turn Gibraltar into a haven for their money and used the proceeds to subside public housing and free university education.
‘Three possibilities’
At 79, he is still minister for economic development and when I had dinner with him last Saturday night he said he plans to stand for re-election next year.
Given all of this, I asked him what he thought about the Brexit negotiations. His answer is the best short summary I’ve yet heard: “There were only three possibilities. One was the status quo, which the British have decided they don’t want.
“The second is something better than the status quo, which the EU can’t possibly give them. And the third is something worse than the status quo, but since the status quo was not acceptable to you, something worse than the status quo couldn’t be acceptable either.
“It is quite simple: if you enter into a negotiation in which all of your options are impossible, you can’t win.”
If you leave aside his Marxism and his atheism – admittedly rather a lot for the DUP to leave aside – Bossano has much in common with the DUP. Gibraltar is an iconic outpost of Britishness, and he is one of the people who have fought to keep it that way. Like the DUP, he has often been more British than British governments, driving them crazy with his hardline resistance to any compromise with Spain on the issue of sovereignty. Like the DUP, he has also insisted on local self-government.
When you see the steps of the main passageway up the Rock from the old town of Gibraltar painted in the colours and form of the union jack, like kerbstones in loyalist estates, you don’t have to stretch too far for the connections.
Room to retreat
And, astonishingly, Joe Bossano tells me that he spent his early childhood in, of all places, the Paisleyite heartland of Ballymena. During the second World War, the British rather ruthlessly evacuated the civilian population of Gibraltar to Britain. Joe’s family ended up living in a Nissen hut in what was effectively a refugee camp in Co Antrim. Back in Gibraltar, he was briefly educated by the Irish Christian Brothers before, as he puts it, “we parted by mutual agreement”.
He became a deckhand in the merchant navy, moved to West Ham in London’s East End and joined the Seaman’s Union. He learned his negotiating skills the hard way, dealing with ship owners in a very rough industry.
Which brings us back to Brexit. “When you are going in to a negotiation,” he says, “the most important thing you need to know is: what happens if I fail? You must have a way out – you try to get what you want but if that’s not possible, you have to be able to retreat and fight another day.”
In a week when the Irish Border continued to bedevil Brexit and British politics was resounding with the drama of “humiliation” and demands for “respect”, it was all the more poignant, watching the sun go down over the Rock, to be reminded of such solid advice from a veteran fighter for Britishness: don’t go into talks when there is no good outcome and always leave yourself a way out.
In this outpost of empire, the natives knew something the mother country had forgotten.
“The second is something better than the status quo, which the EU can’t possibly give them. And the third is something worse than the status quo, but since the status quo was not acceptable to you, something worse than the status quo couldn’t be acceptable either.
“It is quite simple: if you enter into a negotiation in which all of your options are impossible, you can’t win.”
And there we have it.
I feel very angry about remainers telling us we voted and it is failing democracy to vote again, when what the people voted for was based on lies. Why are they so scared about another referendum? They know why? It is because they think they will now lose it now people have a better idea where Brexit will leave us. It can never be undemocratic to ask the people again, they have the opportunity to give the same response!
In terms of the other way round - there isn't a major milestone dictating the timing - which is why the possibility of another vote is being muted, and will probably happen at some point if public opinion suggests there is a desire for it.
This is on our elected representatives, who through their politicking and incompetence are doing their utmost to f@ck the whole thing up.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate the bloody mindedness of the British people if it came to a second referendum. The EU by their behaviour haven't exactly been winning any new friends on this side of the Channel.
Isn't that simply the wrong way of putting anything?
Surely the EU is being the EU which should surprise nobody, especially the UK who has spent the best part of half a century participating in shaping the EU.
There really is no need for the EU to do any more than respond to the UK by saying we agree to help you in the UK provided you realize that we will continue to be the EU. Now, what are your proposals?
See how helpful I'm being? About as helpful as the EU.
Apart from the fact that Dale Higgins didn't say any of the things attributed to him and doesn't work for the Population Research Working Party. Partly because he isn't a professor. But mainly because it doesn't exist.
In fact, the only factual part of the story is that there is a man called Dale Higgins. He's currently serving a prison sentence for people smuggling.
A man who attempted to smuggle an illegal immigrant into the UK through the Channel Tunnel in his car boot has been jailed. Dale Higgins, 36, was stopped by Border Force officers at the tunnel entrance in Coquelles, France, who found a man curled-up inside the boot of his Audi A4. Higgins claimed he had been to Amsterdam for the day to do some drinking and gambling.
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/25/man-jailed-after-trying-to-smuggle-illegal-immigrant-into-uk-in-car-boot-7882635/?ito=cbshare