Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Maticmaker said:
My point was that because of the restraints on the EU via its own treaty's etc. it could not come to the table and negotiate a WA, and a future trade deal at the same time. Hence it was pointless the UK Government getting embroiled in the WA only, because that was the only indeterminate element that gave the Government leverage in the A50 process itself and on negotiating trade issues.

Hence the only way the Government could have respected the Referendum result was to go for the 'no deal' option, from day one, but instead it tried to pitch its approach somewhere in the middle, stating "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" which was patently untrue and which led to all sorts of complications, the border issue in Ireland being just one. If you are truly going to negotiate there should be no pre-conditions, from either side otherwise its not a negotiation. If you ignore this maxim, you will lose, and that is what has happened to the Government, its options are now limited it can either go for a 'No deal' for which it would seem the EU is more prepared for than us, or it can choke on revoking A50 and accept the political consequences... which in the longer term, the effects are likely to be more serious than a 'No Deal'.
Click to expand...

Mate none of that is actually an answer to the question i posed.

What i'm getting at which you might have caught on to, which is probably why you are avoiding answering the question, is that the UK could never have opted for No Deal from day 1.

How could the British government have came out and said they were not going to even bother to seek any sort of agreement with the EU for a transition period to maintain the status quo and preserve the GFA until they get a permanent solution in place. Just parachuting out of the EU without a withdrawal agreement would have broken the Good Friday Agreement. Thats lodged with the UN it's international Law.

The UK would have been announcing to the world that they will break international agreements when it suits them (and fecking over Ireland north and south in the process). Right before they seek to negotiate international trade deals, not a clever course of action wouldn't you agree?

Surely you must realize by this stage what you have been suggesting was never an option. And please don't come off with the ''no one wants a border'' nonsense mate. Anyone with a basic understanding of the situation knows that doesn't translate to reality. Without a deal a border will go up it has to and then goodbye GFA and probably peace in Ireland with it. It's that simple.
 
They can try and cry revolution but MPs having some control of the agenda and putting forward their ideas is what 95% of the country assume they do. That's very clear and why May always pushed the unhelpful parlaiment line.
 
Wibble said:
Because what a majority of MP's want is unlikely to be what May wants, so she doesn't want to know.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it enable her to actually push a version of brexit through though and resign as the PM that delivered on her promise?
 
Now let's get some legislation through for the European elections :drool:
 
Interesting that Bridgen of the ERG in his sky news interview just now calles for May to stand down and a GE to get Brexit through.

They're switching tactics and we'll soon hear them demand it be put to the people
 
Ubik said:
Now let's get some legislation through for the European elections :drool:
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, it'd be genuinely intriguing to see what happens. Generally the Eurosceptics always benefited from caring more about them than anyone, but the PV mob would probably be right up for it this time. Plus UKIP have collapsed, so even if they improve slightly on their current fortunes it's hard to see them doing anything spectacular, meaning they'll almost certainly lose seats. Fun times ahead eh.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The indicative votes will be interesting if only in the fact that one can see which MP voted for what.
Click to expand...
Worst of all situations. They should of voted her deal through. Now there’ll be a series of options that, if made policy, will be absolutely pointless and will almost certainly cause uproar.

In terms of minimising civil unrest May’s deal is probably as good as it gets. Plus the only option that had any economic appeal in that deal was the prospect of an independent trade policy. Not much chance of that now.
 
Honest John said:
Worst of all situations. They should of voted her deal through. Now there’ll be a series of options that, if made policy, will be absolutely pointless and will almost certainly cause uproar.

In terms of minimising civil unrest May’s deal is probably as good as it gets. Plus the only option that had any economic appeal in that deal was the prospect of an independent trade policy. Not much chance of that now.
Click to expand...

Another day of pointless amendments/votes unless they actually cancel it altogether which won't happen.
If the Uk are going to leave they should have voted it through but they all think they are going to get atrade deal sorted out before they leave.
They don't seem to realise that they need a withdrawal agreement to get to the real negotiations afterwards.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Another day of pointless amendments/votes unless they actually cancel it altogether which won't happen.
If the Uk are going to leave they should have voted it through but they all think they are going to get atrade deal sorted out before they leave.
They don't seem to realise that they need a withdrawal agreement to get to the real negotiations afterwards.
Click to expand...
I am seriously starting to believe that very few of this lot actually understand the difference between the WA and the future relationship. When I watch parliament the two are conflated all the time, especially by Corbyn who starts a sentence by saying that May’s deal is a disaster then finishes it by offering a CU/SM as an alternative - which is clearly a trade arrangement.
 
Honest John said:
I am seriously starting to believe that very few of this lot actually understand the difference between the WA and the future relationship. When I watch parliament the two are conflated all the time, especially by Corbyn who starts a sentence by saying that May’s deal is a disaster then finishes it by offering a CU/SM as an alternative - which is clearly a trade arrangement.
Click to expand...

The distinction has been a matter of debate all day and it's been a matter of press coverage all day, you're obviously looking in the wrong places.
 
Smores said:
The distinction has been a matter of debate all day and it's been a matter of press coverage all day, you're obviously looking in the wrong places.
Click to expand...
They may have debated it but they don’t seem to understand it. Why is a Norway++ arrangement or so-call CM 2 options being postulated as topics for indicative voting? First we have to decide how we leave. Either of those options will take time to set up. The EU have said that whatever we want as a trading relationship we have to actually leave the bloc before negotiations can start. So what on earth do our intrepid Parliamentarians envisage to be the route to whatever it is we wind up with? There has to first be a WA or we crash out. Then we negotiate Norway or whatever.

Convoluted arguments. Cart before horse.
 
Siorac said:
There were no nation states at that time. None. At least not in the way that term is usually defined.

If you use a VERY loose definition (a united country where most people speak the same language) then yeah, sure. But that's not how it's usually defined, at least on the continent.
Click to expand...

You are so going to show yourself up if you keep on with this crap.

Switzerland country or not?
 
NinjaFletch said:
You're talking about actual Danish occupation. The Danelaw refers to the bit of the country which had (as it would suggest) a different law code (although there is a great deal of dispute how different it looked). Those terms continue to be of relevance through to the late eleventh century (for example, Yorkshire Domesday has 'wapentakes' where as the south has Hundreds). I probably could have said Danelaw counties if I wasn't being lazy though.
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct.

The Danelaw defined the part of the country which came under and paid taxes to the Danish rulers based mainly in York. The whole issue is that for the first time that part of England (Yorkshire and the North east ) which had been controlled by the Danes came under a single Anglo-Saxon ruler while Athelstan was king as did East Anglia. The kingdoms around it were forced into fealty despite their attempt to stop it at Brunanburh . Which is why it is called England.

Later it was taken back under Danish control after Athelstan died and became, as the whole of England was, part of the North Sea empire.
 
711 said:
Well yeah, the major European states were cobbled together in recent times by England's standard. Can't help that I'm afraid :)
Click to expand...
Ehhh not what mean. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000 but it wasn't a nation state.

But as I already got asked whether Switzerland was a country (???), I feel like it's a bit pointless to keep trying to get the distinction understood here.
 
Dante said:
#thuglife

Bercow is great!
Click to expand...

I dunno, he's funny and undoubtedly charismatic, but also seems a bit like the sort of up-his-own-arse comedy figure who's enjoying this more than he should, and who's a part of why parliament is in such a fecking state to the extent it currently is. Worth bearing in mind he's had a whole host of bullying allegations in the past to the point where one former employee was apparently diagnosed with PTSD after she stopped working for him. So, yeah, good for a spectacle. But also probably a cnut, if I'm being cynical.
 
Cheesy said:
I dunno, he's funny and undoubtedly charismatic, but also seems a bit like the sort of up-his-own-arse comedy figure who's enjoying this more than he should, and who's a part of why parliament is in such a fecking state to the extent it currently is. Worth bearing in mind he's had a whole host of bullying allegations in the past to the point where one former employee was apparently diagnosed with PTSD after she stopped working for him. So, yeah, good for a spectacle. But also probably a cnut, if I'm being cynical.
Click to expand...
To borrow from @Eboue, it's a bit of the "Welcome to the resistance" nonsense with Bercow.

He's clearly a cnut or at least suspicious given his history but him winding up the Tories is amusing.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
No, that's not correct.

The Danelaw defined the part of the country which came under and paid taxes to the Danish rulers based mainly in York. The whole issue is that for the first time that part of England (Yorkshire and the North east ) which had been controlled by the Danes came under a single Anglo-Saxon ruler while Athelstan was king as did East Anglia. The kingdoms around it were forced into fealty despite their attempt to stop it at Brunanburh . Which is why it is called England.

Later it was taken back under Danish control after Athelstan died and became, as the whole of England was, part of the North Sea empire.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you just aren't right. I think you've half remembered something from school. I can point you towards some reading if you'd like.
 
It never ends does it? if I thought that this latest development changed anything I'd be up for it, but it doesnt change the fundamentals as far as i can tell. There isnt a majority in the house for any one position, polling suggests a General Election would return the same Government with the same lack of majority, and Labour and the Tories are too polarised to sit down and work together. So its still deadlock. My guess for the most likely outcome at this point would be a No Deal by default.
 
EwanI Ted said:
It never ends does it? if I thought that this latest development changed anything I'd be up for it, but it doesnt change the fundamentals as far as i can tell. There isnt a majority in the house for any one position, polling suggests a General Election would return the same Government with the same lack of majority, and Labour and the Tories are too polarised to sit down and work together. So its still deadlock. My guess for the most likely outcome at this point would be a No Deal by default.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough the only position there is a majority for is “No No-Deal”.
 
esmufc07 said:
Tomorrow will be interesting.

Fully expect to see May ignore whatever the House deems the best way forward, mind.
Click to expand...

100%.

Bercow already addressed this specifically in a point of order. He said that while it’s a legitimate concern, they must vote with absolute belief, conviction and respect for the traditions of the house and if it comes to that point then they will have to address it.

I wondered if that was hinting at the possibility of another motion of contempt against May.
 
I am at a complete loss as to what's happened the last week or so with regards to MPs being able to get rid of the PM when we're at this stage of the proceedings, the speaker using 400odd year old laws to do what he wants.
 
Honest John said:
I am seriously starting to believe that very few of this lot actually understand the difference between the WA and the future relationship. When I watch parliament the two are conflated all the time, especially by Corbyn who starts a sentence by saying that May’s deal is a disaster then finishes it by offering a CU/SM as an alternative - which is clearly a trade arrangement.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear most of them have no idea what they are doing and this has been evident for a long time.
Most of the options have already been voted down so what are they going to vote for on Wednesday.

What I find so ridiculous is that they won't vote for the WA because it will tie them to the EU but other than no deal all the other options tie them to the EU anyway.

And this is before the very slender chance that parliament would have a majority for any of the options anyway and that's before the EU agree.
 
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
 
There's a little clique which happens to - increasingly tenuously - hold power, and can't understand why dissenters just won't do what they're told. Just like when the arrogant and vindictive Iain Duncan Smith was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, May & company show utter disregard for the law and anyone who thwarts them. They're a disgrace; if their party colleagues weren't so gutless, we'd be free of their incompetence, self-interest and boneheaded self-righteousness.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...

I would fully expect Farage and his Brexit party to campaign for another referendum, and they are entitled to do so.

But now everyone knows what leaving actually is and what it entails they should be entitled to a final vote to determine whether it truly is the 'will of the British people' to leave the EU at any cost.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...
There may be calls for anything. However, if the UK remains now after a 2nd referendum , neither Tory nor Labour will go forward with yet another one for the foreseeable future. The only way for that to happen is if something like UKIP wins a majority.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...

Who gives a feck, we'll still be in the EU and that's the main thing.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...

According to The Guardian at least even when MPs talk about a second referendum they don't mean a re-run of the previous Brexit/no-Brexit one:

"A second referendum between leaving and staying in the EU – essentially a replay of the 2016 vote – would be a separate option but nobody in parliament is seriously calling for that. Instead, a referendum could be attached as a condition of approval of one of the other options above. Or there could be a three-choice referendum, between a range of the above options, although three-way referenda are unusual internationally."

So it's unlikely a second referendum would directly overrule the previous one, I think.
 
Penna said:
The hypothesis of a "structural break" is interesting. Anna Soubry said the same thing last night (in a very passionate speech) - when the Conservatives lost their majority, that should have been the point at which the referendum result also lost its legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Why though? I don't really understand the logic behind that. In theory, the referendum had nothing to do with party politics and party manifestos.

Now I do know that in practice it had everything to do with party politics but its legitimacy should have little to do with General Elections - unless a party that campaigned for Remain gained majority. Then I would understand the logic but that didn't happen because neither Labour nor Conservatives were pro-Remain in the campaign (as far as I'm aware) and what's more, the Tories still have a relative majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.