Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Sassy Colin said:
She's being an idiot. It was a compromise between the nations that want us to feck off ASAP, and those that want us to stay in the EU. She should know that anyway.
Click to expand...

Oh she does, but her entire career is based off of getting inside scoops from Conservative MPs. She knows which way her bread is buttered and is very keen to keep it that way.
 
spiriticon said:
Reckless haste? They've had nigh-on 3 years to sort it out!

3 years to find a plan that works for everyone and all I'm hearing is no no no no no no no, even at the other softer decent alternatives.

Shocking stuff.

I hear the word 'compromise' bandied about 20 times a day but nobody, brexiteer or remainer, is moving from their original view. All talk, no action. The state of it all.
Click to expand...

Why is your vote a waste though? The process is still underway, when you voted there was no timeline.

Shock horror brexit is complicated
 
Smores said:
Why is your vote a waste though? The process is still underway, when you voted there was no timeline.

Shock horror brexit is complicated
Click to expand...

There was a timeline. It should have ended 29th March. Staying or leaving.

And yes, if we decide to stay, which tbh I don't really care about anymore, then 2016 was a horrendous waste of time and money and I'd like an apology from the politicians and I will stay at home for the next GE.

If we decide to leave with a soft brexit, i question why it's taken 3 years and utter national humiliation to get to that point.

Either way, my faith in UK politics is utterly destroyed.
 
Last edited:
spiriticon said:
There was a timeline. It should have ended 29th March. Staying or leaving.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking there wasn't. The timeline was instituted when May decided to trigger article 50 before knowing what the Commons would agree to (in hindsight a huge mistake). No such date had been determined when you cast your vote. I think if remainer and leaver can agree on anything though it's that the process has been one long and ever present shitshow.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Strictly speaking there wasn't. The timeline was instituted when May decided to trigger article 50 before knowing what the Commons would agree to (in hindsight a huge mistake). No such date had been determined when you cast your vote. I think if remainer and leaver can agree on anything though it's that the process has been one long and ever present shitshow.
Click to expand...

Parliament voted to trigger Article 50, not just May herself. And besides, you need to trigger it before the EU will even start negotiate. You won't get an idea of what deal you may or may not get if you don't even start it.

What was needed in the 2 years after A50 was triggered is a bit more fecking structure and REAL compromise, not just politicians voting for their ideal scenario and voting down everything else.
 
Walrus said:
He is right though, in that most people (on both sides) didnt really consider the Irish situation when casting their vote. Most people who say otherwise are probably just lying.

In terms of its impact now and whether you should care about it or not, of course you should. But conversely, its not something that directly affects most of the voting population (in their eyes) so its not really at the top of their priority list when it comes to Brexit. It is however, a strong and convenient argument that remainers can use - but honestly if the sides were reversed, im not sure there would be that much difference.

To put it another way, if it transpired that the only way to maintain the GFA was to leave the EU, how many remain voters can put their hands on their hearts and say that that would change their vote? I dont think I can.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, I and everyone over here who I know voted for remain were considering the border as part of the vote. Even some leave voters admitted it preyed on their minds before voting leave.
 
spiriticon said:
Parliament voted to trigger Article 50, not just May herself. And besides, you need to trigger it before the EU will even start negotiate. You won't get an idea of what deal you may or may not get if you don't even start it.

What was needed in the 2 years after A50 was triggered is a bit more fecking structure and REAL compromise, not just politicians voting for their ideal scenario and voting down everything else.
Click to expand...

You know what, I'm going to retract what I just said (apart from the shitshow bit). I was wrong. Cameron said at the time of the referendum that he'd invoke Article 50 immediately in the event of a leave victory.

I still maintain that going into negotiations without having the foggiest idea of what will be acceptable for your own side is a spectacular mistake.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
When will parliament realise that the real negotiations start after the UK leaves and that the WA is just to get out.
Click to expand...

Never, that's the point, it will never be (openly) admitted by Parliament although it still has to be faced, if they want to avoid a no deal Brexit. If they had listened to what the EU told them from the off and then realised earlier the implications of what was being said then a no deal Brexit would have had to have been enacted from the get go.

It was all bluster from May from the word go and the EU knew it, the fact we are still being strung along proves it. All that the UK parliament can now do is to get/force May to revoke A50, complete the abject surrender take the humiliation and shit show the victors will throw at us and then put themselves to the sword by demanding a GE and beg for mercy from the electorate.

I can see that happening can't you??
 
Maticmaker said:
Never, that's the point, it will never be (openly) admitted by Parliament although it still has to be faced, if they want to avoid a no deal Brexit. If they had listened to what the EU told them from the off and then realised earlier the implications of what was being said then a no deal Brexit would have had to have been enacted from the get go.

It was all bluster from May from the word go and the EU knew it, the fact we are still being strung along proves it. All that the UK parliament can now do is to get/force May to revoke A50, complete the abject surrender take the humiliation and shit show the victors will throw at us and then put themselves to the sword by demanding a GE and beg for mercy from the electorate.

I can see that happening can't you??
Click to expand...

The initial withdrawal discussions should have taken six months and moved onto the future relationship discussions. There was only ever going to be one withdrawal agreement and yet even now they are still going on about renegotiating the backstop.

No, at this moment I still think No Deal is inevitable , whether in May, June or November, I'll plump for June.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
No, at this moment I still think No Deal is inevitable , whether in May, June or November, I'll plump for June.
Click to expand...

We are into the 'never never land' scenario or Groundhog day writ large, the only way out is to revoke A50 otherwise we keep going around the loop, goodness knows what business/industry will make of it?
 
GloryHunter07 said:
I completely disagree, cant see no deal unless there is a big shift in Parliamentary arithmetic.
Click to expand...

I can't a see a single decision taken unless there is a big shift in parliamentary arithmetic. Ironically what the UK is currently doing is what they "feared" the EU would do with the backstop.
 
Think the only way no deal happens is if it goes back to the UK electorate and they vote for it. It clearly terrifies the UK government and the EU.

JPRouve said:
I can't a see a single decision taken unless there is a big shift in parliamentary arithmetic. Ironically what the UK is currently doing is what they "feared" the EU would do with the backstop.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is the real 'backstop' - backstuck.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Because the EU have given the UK another chance to sort out an agreement but that won't go on forever.
Click to expand...

Another couple of years would be nice, keeps the Tory away from domestic policy and allows for the voter base to become more remain.

Breixteers are terrified of a long delay as they know day by day the remain position gets stronger.
 
Smores said:
Another couple of years would be nice, keeps the Tory away from domestic policy and allows for the voter base to become more remain.

Breixteers are terrified of a long delay as they know day by day the remain position gets stronger.
Click to expand...

I really see at as they hope May and Corbyn will finally agree on something, or yes they cancel it altogether. But if in say 5 or 6 weeks time they both keep to the same line, I think they may give up hope.
 
If they revoke article 50, surely they don't just swan in with the house coat and slippers on as if nothing happened.
They've lost all credibility whichever way this ends up.
 
Ian Reus said:
If they revoke article 50, surely they don't just swan in with the house coat and slippers on as if nothing happened.
They've lost all credibility whichever way this ends up.
Click to expand...

In that scenario the healing would only start once a non-Conservative, EU-friendly Prime Minister and government are elected. But yes, the EU will probably have one eye on the UK at all times so to speak. The damage is already being done, businesses/institutions are leaving/have left and our influence in the EU is declining. I'm sure the federalists would also use it as a stick to beat us with every time we object to further integrating proposals.

It's still a much preferable situation to leaving mind you.
 
JPRouve said:
I can't a see a single decision taken unless there is a big shift in parliamentary arithmetic. Ironically what the UK is currently doing is what they "feared" the EU would do with the backstop.
Click to expand...
I can see parliament agreeing on Single market 2.0 or some such, that was the direction of travel when they were doing indicative votes.
 
GloryHunter07 said:
I can see parliament agreeing on Single market 2.0 or some such, that was the direction of travel when they were doing indicative votes.
Click to expand...

I struggle to see how it fixes the current problems. It's based on easily joining EFTA and easily creating a custom union with the EU.
 
JPRouve said:
I can't a see a single decision taken unless there is a big shift in parliamentary arithmetic. Ironically what the UK is currently doing is what they "feared" the EU would do with the backstop.
Click to expand...

From all reports it very much sounds to me like both parties will be setting the groundwork for the indicative votes to make sure they pass. I think it'll be transferable votes
 
Smores said:
Another couple of years would be nice, keeps the Tory away from domestic policy and allows for the voter base to become more remain.

Breixteers are terrified of a long delay as they know day by day the remain position gets stronger.
Click to expand...

You'd have to get rid of Macron first. The extension barely made it to October. He wants a no deal and he is ready.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I really see at as they hope May and Corbyn will finally agree on something, or yes they cancel it altogether.
Click to expand...

Spot on Paul, its the only way out.
After a few more weeks of Corbyn saying 'she is a stubborn bitch (or words to that effect) and May saying "its my deal or no Brexit", then they will announce together, they cannot agree, except to cancel Brexit by revoking A50!

Corbyn's prize for his complying is that May will step down and then either force a GE, or oblige Corbyn with a no confidence vote in which the government will deign to abstain and what remains of the tory party goes ape-shit! This may happen in June but more likely October, nice irony don't you think?
 
GloryHunter07 said:
Which problems (there are so many)?
Click to expand...

In order to fix the irish border problem you need a free trade and a custom agreement. Joining EFTA while staying members of the EEA should fix the free trade agreement issue but it can only be done without altering your current FTA, the new custom union will require the UK to leave the EU first because they can't be on both sides of the table which is the reason behind the withdrawal agreement and the backstop. So the main reason behind the rejection of the WA still exists and the question of the Schengen agreement should pop up because all EFTA members signed an agreement on that topic.

The way I see it, CM 2.0 has the same issues than the WA agreement and if MPs are willing to compromise on these issues then they can't explain why they rejected the WA.
 
JPRouve said:
In order to fix the irish border problem you need a free trade and a custom agreement. Joining EFTA while staying members of the EEA should fix the free trade agreement issue but it can only be done without altering your current FTA, the new custom union will require the UK to leave the EU first because they can't be on both sides of the table which is the reason behind the withdrawal agreement and the backstop. So the main reason behind the rejection of the WA still exists and the question of the Schengen agreement should pop up because all EFTA members signed an agreement on that topic.

The way I see it, CM 2.0 has the same issues than the WA agreement and if MPs are willing to compromise on these issues then they can't explain why they rejected the WA.
Click to expand...

I think last night’s optics - May locked outside while Macron decided the country’s fate - kills any serious chance of getting support for Norway plus/Common Market 2.0.
 
JPRouve said:
In order to fix the irish border problem you need a free trade and a custom agreement. Joining EFTA while staying members of the EEA should fix the free trade agreement issue but it can only be done without altering your current FTA, the new custom union will require the UK to leave the EU first because they can't be on both sides of the table which is the reason behind the withdrawal agreement and the backstop. So the main reason behind the rejection of the WA still exists and the question of the Schengen agreement should pop up because all EFTA members signed an agreement on that topic.

The way I see it, CM 2.0 has the same issues than the WA agreement and if MPs are willing to compromise on these issues then they can't explain why they rejected the WA.
Click to expand...
My laymans interpretation is that most of the opposition to the WA was Party political.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.