Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Paul the Wolf said:
Bearing in mind that the main problems are the Irish border, the Tories don't want a CU of any kind and Labour want a CU where they can do what they like. I'm talking real problems that need to be solved now. The problem of avoiding no deal .
Click to expand...

The proposal for CU that came closest in the indicative votes came out of the Tories and got the most votes from Tory MPs. The government (aka Theresa) doesn't want CU, but that doesn't mean a lot since she's not gonna be around for too much longer and a lot of Tory MPs are looking for compromise.

If the Parliament agrees to pursue a realistic customs union with the EU, they could take that to Brussels and ask for a long term extension (2 years) to iron out the details and put the border checks in place. I don't think Brussels would disagree on that, so long as it gets some concessions from the Parliament about the certainty of that outcome (i.e. a binding vote) instead of wasting another 2 years.

The advantages of that would be two-fold; not only avoiding the no-deal situation and the ensuing disruptions it will cause, but more importantly it'd be finally giving businesses a clear indication on what to look forward to. Whether goods made in the UK will have tariff free access to the EU market or not.

That scenario would ultimately lead to a border in Ireland and the UK breaking the GFA with whatever that implies. But there doesn't seem to be parliamentary support for revocation or access to the Single Market, so being realistic about it that's very likely to happen. People's vote gives a glimmer of hope, but if the result is still out then what?
 
MadMike said:
The proposal for CU that came closest in the indicative votes came out of the Tories and got the most votes from Tory MPs. The government (aka Theresa) doesn't want CU, but that doesn't mean a lot since she's not gonna be around for too much longer and a lot of Tory MPs are looking for compromise.

If the Parliament agrees to pursue a realistic customs union with the EU, they could take that to Brussels and ask for a long term extension (2 years) to iron out the details and put the border checks in place. I don't think Brussels would disagree on that, so long as it gets some concessions from the Parliament about the certainty of that outcome (i.e. a binding vote) instead of wasting another 2 years.

The advantages of that would be two-fold; not only avoiding the no-deal situation and the ensuing disruptions it will cause, but more importantly it'd be finally giving businesses a clear indication on what to look forward to. Whether goods made in the UK will have tariff free access to the EU market or not.

That scenario would ultimately lead to a border in Ireland and the UK breaking the GFA with whatever that implies. But there doesn't seem to be parliamentary support for revocation or access to the Single Market, so being realistic about it that's very likely to happen. People's vote gives a glimmer of hope, but if the result is still out then what?
Click to expand...

Only 34 Tories voted for the CU and 234 against - and there are more than 268 Tory MPs .
Second point is - who amongst them think by having a CU means there is no border - when the penny drops... because the impression on here and in newspapers think that solves the border problem.

I didn't say Brussels would object to it.
Even under no deal the Uk are still liable to resolve the Irish border problem as they've broken an international treaty.

If the Uk sign the WA now there is no hard border for the foreseeable future because of the backstop. The CU doesn't remove the backstop.
Goods made in the EU would need to be EU certified to be sellable in the EU. Lots of UK production will cease if they're not in the SM and have a fluid border.
Too many people talk about tariffs, yes it is one issue but by no means the main issue.
 
Possibly asked already in here, sorry if it has been:

- If on Monday, parliament's most popular preference is for a referendum/confirmatory vote, is there anything that could cause it to become law or force it through? I know the indicative votes are non binding, so quite curious.

Edit: By most popular, I don't mean voted in favour of. I mean, most popular of all the noes. Like it was last time.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
Possibly asked already in here, sorry if it has been:

- If on Monday, parliament's most popular preference is for a referendum/confirmatory vote, is there anything that could cause it to become law or force it through? I know the indicative votes are non binding, so quite curious.

Edit: By most popular, I don't mean voted in favour of. I mean, most popular of all the noes. Like it was last time.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, if any option on Monday can be seen to command enough votes to pass muster, it would still be up to the PM to find a way to make it law. Also it would also have to be accepted by the EU, otherwise there is no point it trying to make it enforceable.

Except for the no deal option, we are now entirely in the hands of the EU, they shout "Jump" and we ask "How High"?
 
Maticmaker said:
As I understand it, if any option on Monday can be seen to command enough votes to pass muster, it would still be up to the PM to find a way to make it law. Also it would also have to be accepted by the EU, otherwise there is no point it trying to make it enforceable.

Except for the no deal option, we are now entirely in the hands of the EU, they shout "Jump" and we ask "How High"?
Click to expand...

Parlaiment could in theory if they find a way to force a motion on the order paper make the winner binding. However since it's the PM who would have to go back to the EU even if it was binding it would need a willing PM, it would get very messy.
 
SteveJ said:
Above the law?:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...son-under-fire-vote-leave-fine-appeal-dropped
Click to expand...

So they've finally accepted it - there will probably be zero to little in the way of consequences for the like of Gove and Johnson.

If Vote Leave broke spending rules is there any way of using this to say that the first EU referendum is invalid? The vote was close, extra money - illegal money - spent on campaigning for a Leave vote, could this have tipped the result in Leave's favour?
 
Smores said:
Parlaiment could in theory if they find a way to force a motion on the order paper make the winner binding. However since it's the PM who would have to go back to the EU even if it was binding it would need a willing PM, it would get very messy.
Click to expand...

Putting it another way.

Let's say for arguments sake.
1. Customs Union gets a majority.
2. PM accepts to adopt a Customs Union as a change to the political declaration
3. EU are open to the idea of the UK being in a customs union
4. It is added to the political declaration that during the transition period the UK and the EU will negotiate that the UK may join some kind of CU

what happens next
5. the UK now signs the WA and avoids no deal
or
5. No we still won't sign it because the backstop is still there and we're still a vassal state.

Answers on a postcard.
 
Apparently one of May's people outed him. She's desperate, dishonest and disgraceful.
 
There is a school of thought among business people that the damage has already been done, even if we end up staying in Europe.

Business has lost confidence in the UK and the largest employers are already looking for exit routes. Witness e.g. Honda, BMW/Mini

I don't know if this view has any merit, but it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Sassy Colin said:
There is a school of thought among business people that the damage has already been done, even if we end up staying in Europe.

Business has lost confidence in the UK and the largest employers are already looking for exit routes. Witness e.g. Honda, BMW/Mini

I don't know if this view has any merit, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...
At this point we either put a plaster on the wound or keep letting it bleed and get worse.

The Conservatives - The Party of Business, yeah right
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Putting it another way.

Let's say for arguments sake.
1. Customs Union gets a majority.
2. PM accepts to adopt a Customs Union as a change to the political declaration
3. EU are open to the idea of the UK being in a customs union
4. It is added to the political declaration that during the transition period the UK and the EU will negotiate that the UK may join some kind of CU

what happens next
5. the UK now signs the WA and avoids no deal
or
5. No we still won't sign it because the backstop is still there and we're still a vassal state.

Answers on a postcard.
Click to expand...

Spot on, the CU does not solve the SM issue!
Its leave (no deal) or revoke A50, as it always has been!
 
Sassy Colin said:
There is a school of thought among business people that the damage has already been done, even if we end up staying in Europe.

Business has lost confidence in the UK and the largest employers are already looking for exit routes. Witness e.g. Honda, BMW/Mini

I don't know if this view has any merit, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

I'm of this view, however the only sane option is to put an end to the madness and work to rebuild things.

Saying "the damage is done, feck it" and leaving anyway is like trying to put out a fire with lighter fluid.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Putting it another way.

Let's say for arguments sake.
1. Customs Union gets a majority.
2. PM accepts to adopt a Customs Union as a change to the political declaration
3. EU are open to the idea of the UK being in a customs union
4. It is added to the political declaration that during the transition period the UK and the EU will negotiate that the UK may join some kind of CU

what happens next
5. the UK now signs the WA and avoids no deal
or
5. No we still won't sign it because the backstop is still there and we're still a vassal state.

Answers on a postcard.
Click to expand...

I think the ERG/DUP objections on the backstop are now secondary to be honest.

I think Labour will support a soft brexit even with the backstop issue but only on a confirmatory vote (CU vs Remain). It allows them to claim that brexit is supported whilst also giving remain a chance to overturn.
 
Rado_N said:
I'm of this view, however the only sane option is to put an end to the madness and work to rebuild things.

Saying "the damage is done, feck it" and leaving anyway is like trying to put out a fire with lighter fluid.
Click to expand...

If we were to somehow get article 50 revoked. It would be essential to put into law a 15/20 year lock on our membership just to give businesses confidence to invest here in the medium term.
 
An Opinium poll for the Observer reveals that May’s lead over Jeremy Corbyn on who would be the best prime minister has halved since last month, dropping from 15 points to 7 points. When Tory leadership hopefuls were pitted against Corbyn, Boris Johnson was the only one who had a lead over the Labour leader. A quarter of voters (25%) thought Johnson would be the best prime minister, compared with 24% for Corbyn.
Click to expand...

I see our very own Trump is on his way to running the country sigh. I can't understand how anyone could want him
 
Reiver said:
So they've finally accepted it - there will probably be zero to little in the way of consequences for the like of Gove and Johnson.

If Vote Leave broke spending rules is there any way of using this to say that the first EU referendum is invalid? The vote was close, extra money - illegal money - spent on campaigning for a Leave vote, could this have tipped the result in Leave's favour?
Click to expand...
The textbook reason for follow-up elections in a functional Democracy is exactly this.

Without a vote at regular intervals, Democracy is meaningless because there are no consequences to lying (proven about Leave), incompetence (proven about Leave), or illegality (proven about Leave).

The stupidest thing about Brexit is that it turned into a set-it-and-forget-it snapshot of public opinion on a particular day, with no room for buyer's remorse and no recourse to politicians doing the wrong thing.

I have more rights when I buy a box of Cornflakes than I did when I voted in the Referendum. And Asda has to deal with more oversight than Boris and his pals ever did. That's fecked up.
 
Apologies for posting a slightly off topic question here.

I have a prospective job opportunity in the UK and wanted to know is the pound expected to devalue as a currency after brexit happens? For example a couple of years ago 1 GBP was approximately 100 INR and now it is around 90 INR. Is it expected to fall further, and if so, what is the general estimate for the devaluation?
 
digitalnirvana said:
Apologies for posting a slightly off topic question here.

I have a prospective job opportunity in the UK and wanted to know is the pound expected to devalue as a currency after brexit happens? For example a couple of years ago 1 GBP was approximately 100 INR and now it is around 90 INR. Is it expected to fall further, and if so, what is the general estimate for the devaluation?
Click to expand...
It depends, but if there's a no-deal Brexit the pound will plummet. If there's a deal there'll be an initial bump-up. It's hard to assess what the long-term impact will be, really.
 
Stanley Road said:
If there is a GE lets hope that one party gets an overall majority.
Click to expand...

If
Cal? said:
I just think Corbyn will be awful as PM.
Click to expand...

I can second that.
The only hope for a Labour government is if the Tories elect Gove as leader.
However, even against Gove, Corbyn would still be difficult to elect as PM.

If they have any sense at all and ambition to become the government, Labour would get rid of Corbyn and replace him with someone far more electable. Difficult to say who because the talent pool is pretty much empty.
Sadly they have no such sense or ambition so they will stick with Jeremy and remain in opposition.

Incidentally, I see that the Tories have started a coordinated campaign to tell everyone that the Brexit shambles is all the fault of Labour and nothing to do with themselves...
 
Smores said:
I think the ERG/DUP objections on the backstop are now secondary to be honest.

I think Labour will support a soft brexit even with the backstop issue but only on a confirmatory vote (CU vs Remain). It allows them to claim that brexit is supported whilst also giving remain a chance to overturn.
Click to expand...

The only real reason to object to the WA was the backstop, all other avenues could have been explored in the transition period anyway.
ERG just want to leave. DUP I think is another matter. Labour who knows.

But a CU only is not a soft Brexit. You still have borders, no FoM, no SM. No attraction for foreign investors, no advantage for other countries to make agreement and it doesn't solve the problem of the Irish border.
 
digitalnirvana said:
Apologies for posting a slightly off topic question here.

I have a prospective job opportunity in the UK and wanted to know is the pound expected to devalue as a currency after brexit happens? For example a couple of years ago 1 GBP was approximately 100 INR and now it is around 90 INR. Is it expected to fall further, and if so, what is the general estimate for the devaluation?
Click to expand...

It depends what happens. If the UK leave with a hard Brexit the pound will lose a lot of value. If they go for a very soft Brexit which is not too far different to the current relationship the pound will probably improve.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The only real reason to object to the WA was the backstop, all other avenues could have been explored in the transition period anyway.
ERG just want to leave. DUP I think is another matter. Labour who knows.

But a CU only is not a soft Brexit. You still have borders, no FoM, no SM. No attraction for foreign investors, no advantage for other countries to make agreement and it doesn't solve the problem of the Irish border.
Click to expand...
That very much requires a trust in the government, only an idiot would sign off on brexit and give this goverment complete freedom to control the way forward. The way forward and the divorce have to be decided together, we made that principle into law.

There's obviously also the main reason, to stop brexit.
 
Smores said:
That very much requires a trust in the government, only an idiot would sign off on brexit and give this goverment complete freedom to control the way forward. The way forward and the divorce have to be decided together, we made that principle into law.

There's obviously also the main reason, to stop brexit.
Click to expand...

Yes, ok, to stop Brexit as well. Yes , I'm not disagreeing that the two go together, on the other hand who knows how the discussions on the future relationship will evolve which will also will depend on who is in charge of them.
Nothing is certain of what will happen when the second phase of talks start but somehow the Uk have got to get there. If not cancel it. No-one trusts anyone.
 
Buster15 said:
If


I can second that.
The only hope for a Labour government is if the Tories elect Gove as leader.
However, even against Gove, Corbyn would still be difficult to elect as PM.

If they have any sense at all and ambition to become the government, Labour would get rid of Corbyn and replace him with someone far more electable. Difficult to say who because the talent pool is pretty much empty.
Sadly they have no such sense or ambition so they will stick with Jeremy and remain in opposition.

Incidentally, I see that the Tories have started a coordinated campaign to tell everyone that the Brexit shambles is all the fault of Labour and nothing to do with themselves...
Click to expand...
Starmer.
 
I'm not sure;
a) why people on here think there will be a GE (soon) and;
b) what difference would it make to Brexit?

As far as a) is concerned I cannot see the Tory's opting for a GE, at least not until they get their new leader in place. Hence a no confidence vote would be needed, which is also unlikely to pass (as with all the other indicative ideas).
As far as b) is concerned it would be too late to avoid the EU's deadline of 12th April, and the no deal default would have occurred, or an approved extension/delay (and who* would ask for it?) would have triggered, then the UK's involvement in the EU elections would be assured and finally, what overall difference would it make to Brexit anyway?
(* can't see the Government asking the EU for an extension if it had just been humiliated in a no confidence vote...be like asking the hangman to pass you your own noose!)

Would the EU wait and grant an extension, thereby gambling on say a labour victory? If so would they then 'parley' with Jeremy, or with his party, many of whom hold different views to their leader, and on whose terms would they negotiate, e.g. would the backstop still be 'in play'?

Would the EU also gamble on a new house of Commons possibly losing it overall 'remain' advantage? An awful lot of people 'out in the sticks' and not just the people who voted last time, are getting pretty fed up and who knows how they would vote now? (Nigel, rubbing his hands in the background!) and the final gamble for the EU; would either of the major parties get an overall majority to enable them, unencumbered, to enact their own view of Brexit or of non-Brexit?

If it was the latter, i.e. with the commons losing its current overall remain majority, then Brexit is much more likely even after all the wait and the smooching of past politicos, with the dreaded 'accidental no deal' becoming a fact and by 'no accident'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.