Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Kentonio said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yeah but those 2-3 months will give them time to shift their personal investments
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sensible enough. Why would they agree to an extension of a couple of months when no progress has been made the past two years?
What a shambles this is.
 
SqueakyWeasel said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't really know where the longer delay idea comes from, it seems to be a UK based theory because currently the position in the EU is no extension at all. A poster mentioned a podcast where the idea was used but it was an hypothetical based on the consequence to UK internal politics not an actual wish of EU member states.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
Still think the guy has major skeletons in his closet. Hopefully the Americans get to the bottom of it.
 
foolsgold said:
Not our problem. Something for the EU & Ireland to sort out.

To be blunt saying the UK can't set its own trade and immigration polices because some terrorists in South Armagh wouldn't like it and would plant some bombs isn't acceptable. It's pandering to the threat of violence. No nation can operate on that basis.
Click to expand...

No it most certainly is the UK's problem, they signed up to uphold the GFA the EU didn't.

In all this talk of respecting the will of the people and the result of referendums. In Britain there seems to be many people who don't give a feck about the will of the people of Northern Ireland or respecting the result of the GFA referendum.

The ignorance from some is amazing.
 
esmufc07 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get either. There doesn't seem to be a majority FOR anything. Simply extending the A50 would achieve nothing: there's still no solution on the horizon that could conceivably win a majority in Parliament.

You have no idea how confusing all this is for an outsider like me. Though maybe it's just as confusing for you (plural)?
 
Kentonio said:
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?
Click to expand...
Tbh they haven't actually tried properly. They know that May's deal doesn't command a majority and tonight they will see that there is a majority against no deal. So what could get through? They could pose a number of alternatives for indicative and free voting like:

EEA Membership
Staying in the CU
2nd Referendum (questions TBA)
Revoke A50

No need to bang on about her red lines - at this moment in time they are shot and she knows it.

I think staying in the CU might get more than 50% - which maybe something that a deal could be built around. Clearly most of the red lines would be sacrificed because the UK would have to abide by rules set by the EU, it wouldn't be able to do trade deals of it's own and it would probably have to pay for the privilidge (maybe a reduced rate).

Not ideal. Pretty pointless really. But Labour could swing behind - it even if the ERG don't.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Especially given Labour are absolutely terrible at pushing back against these kinds of narratives. As evidenced by the whole financial crisis, "the mess Labour left us in" thing. The bulk of the deficit was not down to Labour profligacy, it was down to saving banks. The Tories supported saving the banks and pretty much matched Labour spending plans in the period leading up to the financial crisis. But I cannot remember this argument ever really being made by Labour, they just accepted the narrative and expressed remorse.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Guy is awesome. :lol:
 
Honest John said:
Tbh they haven't actually tried properly. They know that May's deal doesn't command a majority and tonight they will see that there is a majority against no deal. So what could get through? They could pose a number of alternatives for indicative and free voting like:

EEA Membership
Staying in the CU
2nd Referendum (questions TBA)
Revoke A50

No need to bang on about her red lines - at this moment in time they are shot and she knows it.

I think staying in the CU might get more than 50% - which maybe something that a deal could be built around. Clearly most of the red lines would be sacrificed because the UK would have to abide by rules set by the EU, it wouldn't be able to do trade deals of it's own and it would probably have to pay for the privilidge (maybe a reduced rate).

Not ideal. Pretty pointless really. But Labour could swing behind - it even if the ERG don't.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah its perfectly possible, I just don't see why the EU would agree to play along. The longer it drags on, the worse the effect on the rest of the 27, so there has to be a point (and we may be at that point right now) where they just say feck it and walk away.
 
Adebesi said:
Absolutely. Especially given Labour are absolutely terrible at pushing back against these kinds of narratives. As evidenced by the whole financial crisis, "the mess Labour left us in" thing. The bulk of the deficit was not down to Labour profligacy, it was down to saving banks. The Tories supported saving the banks and pretty much matched Labour spending plans in the period leading up to the financial crisis. But I cannot remember this argument ever really being made by Labour, they just accepted the narrative and expressed remorse.
Click to expand...

Without taking this too far off topic, the requirement to save the banks was largely down to Labour stripping away regulation in the 2000s so the banking sector could fund their spending plans. Many of the complex asset classes that led to the recession didn't really exist before then. So it does still ring true, 'the mess Labour left us in'. It was better for them to bury their heads and accept it as is rather than open a new can of worms.
 
So in essence, if the MPs vote to take no deal off the table today (which I'm assuming they will) and EU refuses to extend the Brexit deadline of 29 March, does that mean the only way for UK to avoid a no deal Brexit would be to revoke Article 50 completely? And does that mean there will be another referendum or will Brexit be postponed pending to more shenanigans?
 
I know it doesn't matter at all, but I fully support this:
Paul the Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing to lose for EU politicians by saying it as it is.
 
Honest John said:
Question. Is leaving without a deal a breach of the GFA?
Click to expand...

Kentonio said:
Yup.
Click to expand...

Honest John said:
So in a sense no deal is legally not an option for the UK?
Click to expand...

Leaving without a deal does not automatically breach the GFA, because we would not necessarily be compelled to set up border controls in N. Ireland under WTO.

However, it would put us in a very difficult situation. WTO non-discrimination rules, particularly "most favoured nation" treatment, specifically prohibit you from treating your different trading partners unequally. This means that if we want frictionless trade and no border checks for goods coming into the UK from Ireland, we have to allow the same dispensation for goods from China, Argentina, the USA etc etc.

In other words, a total free-for-all.
 
Last edited:
If it wasn't for their clear ignorance and incompetence it would be incredible that those tories are still pushing for this malthouse bollocks. They don't have a notion.
 
Kentonio said:
Oh yeah its perfectly possible, I just don't see why the EU would agree to play along. The longer it drags on, the worse the effect on the rest of the 27, so there has to be a point (and we may be at that point right now) where they just say feck it and walk away.
Click to expand...
Because what you'd wind up with is the WA without the backstop. I think the money and citizens rights are moot (nobody was going to seriously argue those.) The WA is all about the Irish situation. UK remaining in the CU get's over that but to some extent leaves May with control on FOM which is her biggest issue IMO.

From an EU point of view it would be win-win. The Irish are not fecked over. The UK still pays. The UK are a rule-taker with no say in anything. Happy days.

If the UK staying in the CU was a definite possibility the EU would grant the extension.

So if that turns out to be the majority view in the Commons it would almost certainly require a ratifying peoples vote on the basis of:- stay in the CU (because that is all the house will vote for) or Remain.
 
11101 said:
Without taking this too far off topic, the requirement to save the banks was largely down to Labour stripping away regulation in the 2000s so the banking sector could fund their spending plans. Many of the complex asset classes that led to the recession didn't really exist before then. So it does still ring true, 'the mess Labour left us in'. It was better for them to bury their heads and accept it as is rather than open a new can of worms.
Click to expand...
I must have missed all the warnings from Tories about how dangerous deregulating the banks was, and proposals for reinstating those regulations.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can anyone blame them?
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Yep. A second referendum is not happening.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

So 2nd ref versus geronwivit, this is where we are?

I suspect the "don't know" and the "please delay" continent are more likely to want a referendum than no deal? But I'm guessing...

More people need to start calling for a 2nd ref instead of poopooing it... I believe there's enough people for it but there are so much bullshit reasons being put up to discount. Reasons where if you dig a little or employ some critical thinking they turn out to be hollow soundbites or propaganda...
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
Logically yes...
Politically I wouldn't be surprised to see may roll the dice on a general election though if she is forced to ask for an extension anywsy

That said another ge could well end up with a hung parliament and the need to co-operate anyway?
Click to expand...
Yes, somehow MPs need to take control away from the government. Not sure how that would work mechanically...
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
As expected.

I don't think we've seen the last vote on May's deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.