I don’t really understand much of this stuff but is it actually possible that we could leave without a deal at the end of the month?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I am really bored of all this now.
Whatever happens can it just happen now please?
Whatever happens can it just happen now please?
Well there's a vote on it tonight.
It's impossible to say at this point. I think (or maybe blindly hope) there will either be an extension followed by a GE or the government will have to revoke A50. But a lot of politicians are saying no deal is likely now.
You really don't understand!!
Don't see the point in a GE, Tories need to own this mess to the very end and hopefully the outcome will be so bad they will cease to exist.
Could someone explain the logic in only extending the deadline to before the EU elections?
It's not like British politicians have a great record for getting things done speedily. We just took two months to ratify three words in a solution that originally got voted down by the biggest UK parliamentary margin ever … to see it get again voted down by the fourth biggest margin.
We all know that May was running down the clock hoping that the hard-liners would take her deal over no deal and a possible new referendum … her gamble (with the lives and futures of the people of Britain) backfired.
I understand the reluctance to extend past the EU elections is to avoid "looking" like Britain are planning in case of an eventual remain position by putting forward candidates … but isn't that the sensible thing to do?
Surely, if we do eventually remain, we will want to address concerns about the EU from "with-in". It's time we took the EU seriously and sent "proper" politicians out there. If we do end up staying we will be weaker than ever otherwise.
Or have I got this wrong … again
It's not like British politicians have a great record for getting things done speedily. We just took two months to ratify three words in a solution that originally got voted down by the biggest UK parliamentary margin ever … to see it get again voted down by the fourth biggest margin.
We all know that May was running down the clock hoping that the hard-liners would take her deal over no deal and a possible new referendum … her gamble (with the lives and futures of the people of Britain) backfired.
I understand the reluctance to extend past the EU elections is to avoid "looking" like Britain are planning in case of an eventual remain position by putting forward candidates … but isn't that the sensible thing to do?
Surely, if we do eventually remain, we will want to address concerns about the EU from "with-in". It's time we took the EU seriously and sent "proper" politicians out there. If we do end up staying we will be weaker than ever otherwise.
Or have I got this wrong … again
What's the point in anything the Tories have done?
It could happen, because at the moment we have a law in place which says we will. That law would have to be changed (the revoking of Article 50). If today's vote confirms that no deal is off the table (which it will) but then nothing else happens before the 29th March, we'd still leave with no deal.
The extension to Article 50 (i.e., asking the EU for more time) has to be agreed by every other EU member state. It also has to be tied to a serious plan to get a deal through Parliament, for something new. Mrs May's twice-rejected deal would have to change, and the EU have said they aren't going to enter into further negotiations on that. So, something new is required.
Nah, it will be his lad by then, Jung Bitar Saurez
How though? Don't they have a majority? If all Conservatives had voted for the deal, it would have gone through, wouldn't it?
I love the British parliament scenes on the news. People just outright laugh in someone's face most of the time. It's hilariously rude.
Question. Is leaving without a deal a breach of the GFA?
Yup.
I'm probably wrong but i don't think it is by itself. It's the arrangements to comply with everything else that would end up resulting in a conflict (figuratively and literally).
So in a sense no deal is legally not an option for the UK?
It's also extremely worrying how UK politicians don't seem to see any danger in re-opening negotiations with the 27. The deal they have now was hard fought and Spain almost derailed the whole thing at the last minute. What exactly do they expect is going to happen if they have to go back to the EU with a begging request for more time, while our backs are firmly up against the wall? It's an unbelievable mess.
Could someone explain the logic in only extending the deadline to before the EU elections?
It's not like British politicians have a great record for getting things done speedily. We just took two months to ratify three words in a solution that originally got voted down by the biggest UK parliamentary margin ever … to see it get again voted down by the fourth biggest margin.
We all know that May was running down the clock hoping that the hard-liners would take her deal over no deal and a possible new referendum … her gamble (with the lives and futures of the people of Britain) backfired.
I understand the reluctance to extend past the EU elections is to avoid "looking" like Britain are planning in case of an eventual remain position by putting forward candidates … but isn't that the sensible thing to do?
Surely, if we do eventually remain, we will want to address concerns about the EU from "with-in". It's time we took the EU seriously and sent "proper" politicians out there. If we do end up staying we will be weaker than ever otherwise.
Or have I got this wrong … again
I think the timeline will depend on the direction.
If it's only extended to before the EU elections then all we'd have time for is a soft brexit negotiation. Whilst i want a second ref a soft brexit is probably the fair approach
It certainly shouldn't be an option, and afterwards you can be sure there would be court cases aplenty, but by then it would be too late of course. Crash out being the default option just causes chaos.
Could someone explain the logic in only extending the deadline to before the EU elections?
It's not like British politicians have a great record for getting things done speedily. We just took two months to ratify three words in a solution that originally got voted down by the biggest UK parliamentary margin ever … to see it get again voted down by the fourth biggest margin.
We all know that May was running down the clock hoping that the hard-liners would take her deal over no deal and a possible new referendum … her gamble (with the lives and futures of the people of Britain) backfired.
I understand the reluctance to extend past the EU elections is to avoid "looking" like Britain are planning in case of an eventual remain position by putting forward candidates … but isn't that the sensible thing to do?
Surely, if we do eventually remain, we will want to address concerns about the EU from "with-in". It's time we took the EU seriously and sent "proper" politicians out there. If we do end up staying we will be weaker than ever otherwise.
Or have I got this wrong … again
If you extend beyond the election what do we do with british MEPs if the UK leave? And if it's a long extension we will have issues with the new budget period that starts next year. From the EU's pov, it's easier if the UK leaves on March 29 or before the EU elections.
The fact that very few people in this country have ever taken European elections seriously is the reason why a wrecking ball like Farage has been allowed to operate and gain a platform for his populist views. I mean even I thought his attack on Van Rumpoy was quite funny.
Christ almighty. There is no hope.
Technically that's the current trajectory, if we froze Parliament now we would be out on 30th March with nothing. MPs vote today whether they're happy to let that happen or if we go begging to the EU for more time to figure something else out.
Any MP who sides with no deal today should have their faces plastered across the country so they don't get a single vote at the next election.
The majority of the Tories voted for it. The Labour party voted against it, were there 3 that voted for the deal?
Most people are only interested in politics on the surface level and the idea that the Labour party stopped Brexit (if its cancelled) will be one the Tories will want to sell. I think they'll have a decent narrative for it too.
Rumours about another meaningful vote. These guys are taking the piss.
[/QUOTE]
Didn't it take Russia about 20 years to get their WTO rates ag
I still think she might roll the dice on a general election if she is forced to ask for an extension... It woul allow her to have a manifesto that supports no deal or changing some of her red lines... But most importantly it will force labour to take a manifesto position on a 2nd referendum where they either start to tear their selves apart with no referendum or they back a referendum and the election is framed about labour stopping brexit
Didn't it take Russia about 20 years to get their WTO rates ag
I still think she might roll the dice on a general election if she is forced to ask for an extension... It woul allow her to have a manifesto that supports no deal or changing some of her red lines... But most importantly it will force labour to take a manifesto position on a 2nd referendum where they either start to tear their selves apart with no referendum or they back a referendum and the election is framed about labour stopping brexit
I just don't understand what delaying A50 will achieve, even if the EU will agree to it?
There isn't a consensus in the house to do anything. Even if the PM wanted a second referendum, I doubt it would get a majority in the commons.
A part of me just wants to leave on the 29th March and be done with it. Ultimately it will affect the majority of those who voted to leave the hardest, so feck them anyway.
There isn't a consensus in the house to do anything. Even if the PM wanted a second referendum, I doubt it would get a majority in the commons.
A part of me just wants to leave on the 29th March and be done with it. Ultimately it will affect the majority of those who voted to leave the hardest, so feck them anyway.
Jesus what an ignorant post
Why do you think anyone would want to trade with a country that breaks treaties and agreements it signed up for?
I’m not even going to touch on the NI aspect apart from this; many many people died during the ‘troubles’ before a peace treaty was signed. It would take a special kind of cnut to walk away from that signed agreement
This has already been ruled out by the EU.
Corbyn's proposal is a non-starter
The Uk still have to honour the GFA with or without a deal and if they revert to WTO rules there has to be a border.
Don't see any reason why the EU would grant an extension.
It will affect everyone apart from the likes of Johnson and Mogg who have invested against the pound and will become even richer in the event of a hard brexit. Do you want those cnuts to win?
Gosh, you don't think they'd want to give us more time to propose stupid unicorn bullshit they've already said is stupid? Oh those tyrants, they never think about our feelings..
The EU keep banging on about the UK saying what it doesn't want, and they need to know what it is actually in favour of. She could request an extension on the basis of holding a series of indicative votes to try and find a majority in the house for something. Whether the EU find that acceptable or not is hard to tell.
What's new? And I'm sure it'll be eaten up by those Brexitors... What can you do about that though?
We shouldn't be surprised by their responses now, this late in the game....
Most of the Brexitor lot have proven themselves to be ignorant and/or selfish...
Why do we need an extension for that? We just had nearly 3 years to decide what we wanted. Are they supposed to believe another 2-3 months is going to make a difference, despite there still being no sign of MP's coming together behind an idea?
Of course they will, if all the Tories had voted for the deal it would still only have passed by one vote.
Gerronwivit!
We'll all be dead and buried before parliament agreed on something.
Don't forget the Seychelles and the Faeroe Islands.
Was hilarious watching May croak through her pre-rehearsed losers speech last night. Just kept thinking of Alan Partridge asking for a glass of water.
Corbyn and his stupid proposal can get fecked too. The only one I saw speaking any sense on tv last night was Soubry again.
Corbyn and his stupid proposal can get fecked too. The only one I saw speaking any sense on tv last night was Soubry again.
Again, I bow to your guys superior knowledge on this matter. I'm doing my best to try to understand it – as I'm affected from both sides. This is what I thought I understood the position to be from reading UK and German (mostly, intelligent) reporting on the subject. Mixed in with insights I've gleaned from things I've read on here. I believe we touched on this subject when I asked a question about Macron saying he would not back an extension about 2 weeks ago.
It might be "easier" as you say, for the EU, but it's not what I understood the position to be from what I've read about their stance on granting an extension. If I recall correctly the idea would be contemplated only if it were a longer delay, including compulsory inclusion in the EU elections, and if there were some "reason" offered for the delay (new referendum, etc) as that would more likely end in "something" concrete happening one way or the other. Also, talking of budget periods, I believe the date the EU favour is until the end of 2020 which is the end of the next budget period.
I think, for the reasons mentioned in my earlier post, inclusion in the forthcoming EU elections is important and should be taken seriously to help reform from within in the case of a reversal of article 50. It changes nothing if Britain eventually leave does it?
European parliament's lead Brexit spokesman said he would oppose even 24-hour article 50 extension unless UK says what it wants
This is what Guy Verhofstadt said in the European parliament about extending article 50.
I don’t want a long extension. I say that very openly. An extension, where we go beyond the European elections, and the European elections will be hijacked by the Brexiters, and by the whole Brexit issues. We will talk only about that, and not about the real problems, and the real reforms we need in the European Union.
The only thing we will do, we will give a new mandate to Mr Farage. That’s exactly wants. Why he wants that? For two reasons. First of all, he can continue to have a salary that he can transfer to his offshore company. And the second thing is that he can continue to do his dirty work in the European Union, that is to try to destroy the European Union from within ...
What we need is now certainty from the House of Commons ... And so I am against every extension, whether an extension of one day, one week, even 24 hours, if it is not based on a clear opinion of the House of Commons for something, that we know what they want.
This is what Guy Verhofstadt said in the European parliament about extending article 50.
I don’t want a long extension. I say that very openly. An extension, where we go beyond the European elections, and the European elections will be hijacked by the Brexiters, and by the whole Brexit issues. We will talk only about that, and not about the real problems, and the real reforms we need in the European Union.
The only thing we will do, we will give a new mandate to Mr Farage. That’s exactly wants. Why he wants that? For two reasons. First of all, he can continue to have a salary that he can transfer to his offshore company. And the second thing is that he can continue to do his dirty work in the European Union, that is to try to destroy the European Union from within ...
What we need is now certainty from the House of Commons ... And so I am against every extension, whether an extension of one day, one week, even 24 hours, if it is not based on a clear opinion of the House of Commons for something, that we know what they want.