They haven't said that at all, they said there would be separate talks
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I think if a deal doesn't get through parliament then we leave with no deal by default. That was passed by May to snooker MPs into passing her deal. It will be her deal or no deal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018
I stand to be corrected on that?
yes I am the biggest Tory supporter on here
They never will deliver on Brexit. There's over 90% majority or maybe more for Remain in the Labour party. Their aim is to get power and kill Brexit. Its plain to see but they won't say it and are just in the floater position trying to hoover up support from all sides.
I honestly believe if there was an election Labour would back the People's Vote option fulwell knowing that the Tory party cannot do that despite it being their get out of jail free card!
DUP will vote down deal according to Wilson.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1120/1012047-brexit-uk/
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1120/1012047-brexit-uk/
You're quite right but i think people mean it won't be allowed to happen. They'll be enough support to divert that eventuality imo.
What politicians say now has very little bearing on what they'll say in a few weeks. I'm shocked so many seem to think that's the case.
Yes, that's how I understand it too, but I've seen a lot of remainers say there isn't a majority for "no deal", which may be true, but wouldn't be of any importance if we are right. (Unless everyone opposed to no deal votes for her deal of course ...)
Ah ok, hopefully you are right and those against a "no deal" can get their heads together and act accordingly.
I agree very much with the bolded. Most people here seem to be just assuming that Remain would win a second referendum, yet unless they can clarify what Remain means first I'm sure they won't.
Which would mean that over a few years people would have voted for Cameron to hold a referendum, for Leave to win the referendum, voted again for May and Corbyn to uphold the Leave vote, and then Leave again in a second referendum. Soft or hard, Brexit would be a certainty.
So by your estimation Jeremy Corbyn's 'new politics' which are supposedly based on honestly actually entail brazen duplicity on the biggest issue affecting Britain since World War 2, to the effect of actively sabotaging the most significant democratic mandate of our lifetimes.
I can't understand why the Spanish get so excited over Gibraltar anyway.
When is the vote on May's deal?
Most Labour MPs are anti-Brexit, and most of the party members, but the old lefties like Corbyn and McDonnell are not, and they are the leaders, so I'm not too sure what 'the aim' is at all, personally. Until the leadership changes, anyway.
Absolute fecking ignarmous cnuts.
Absolutely no excuse for being "misled". Information is abundant and facts apparent in black and white on matters like these.
Mentally lazy, ungrateful , ignorant, prejudiced oxygen thieves.
After the EU meeting on the 25th Nov. Most think early Dec.
Well in fairness when you can only count to 3...
Surprised he got that far.
Thanks.
Nothing.
If they don't accept the deal it has to be no deal, what I've been saying all along, the UK will just sleepwalk out of the EU, hoping the EU will beg them to stay.
state of this.
Makes you wonder
Well if the EU didn't take away all of the numbers...
Not this again.
Prediction: we'll get a couple of Brexiters on here and have to explain yet again for the seventy-fourth time why this is not possible.
I have heard some suggest it could be scheduled as the last session in parliament before xmas - so if they do loose it gives them a bit of breathing space to sort something out and partially to give them a bit longer to try to shore up their vote - personally I think that its a bad idea as they will probably loose anyway but just take a couple of weeks off the timeframe to sort out what happens next and also add uncertainty -
It would though then give may till mid jan to go back to the house in any confidence vote and given the timescale for calling an election and the campaign period (6 weeks in law) it would probably mean you couldnt actually get a new government in place till around mid march... assuming its not a hung parliment again and negotiations are needed (and presuming the conservatives didnt extend A50 before the election was called) it would leave a new government less than 2 weeks to either extend A50, or negotiate a new deal - so I think the odds on a hard brexit at that point would be extremely high - perhaps thats one reason some ERG members have held off as they see this as a better way of getting the result they wank (aka a hard brexit)
indeed - many a spaff over the hardness of mogg pulling out of Europe from the ERGFreudian slip there mate but a suitable verb for the ERG
From the Daily Mail:
'I've always admired Captain Mainwaring': Jacob Rees-Mogg admits his lemming plot has FLOPPED and gone a bit 'Dad's Army'
'I've always admired Captain Mainwaring': Jacob Rees-Mogg admits his lemming plot has FLOPPED and gone a bit 'Dad's Army'
It's more like Great-Granddad's Army, with Moggy in charge.
It's gone a bit under the radar but i find it incredibly absurd that the goverment has actually tried to block us asking the ECJ whether A50 can be revoked.
They've now failed in that attempt but I just can't get my head around the ridiculous nature of that.
They've now failed in that attempt but I just can't get my head around the ridiculous nature of that.
The main issues stopping May getting the votes she needs for this deal seem to be those raised by:
(a) The Brexiteers. i.e. the fear of tieing us in to the CU in perpetuity because you need both sides to agree that we can leave the arrangement.
(b) The DUP because they see the 'deeper alignment' of NI with EU rules - the additional livestock and food checks for product going over the Irish sea - as a red line.
Both situations only come about if a trade deal cannot be agreed by the end of the transition period. Both sides have said that they will use their best endeavours to avoid that situation. They have also said that if it should arise then the transition period can be extended - but only once.
Labour front bench will object to it in any scenario. But there may be a good number of back bench Labour MP's who if they aren't looking to accept the deal now, may do if it can be amended.
If May can get some amendment to the 'both sides agreeing' bit and to limit the Irish Sea produce checks to what is already in existence. Then those arguments should, for the most part be resolved.
The EU have said the deal can't be changed but the Spanish and French have indicated that they want wording changed.
If that is possible for Spain and France then they can do it for the UK. There must be some room here.
I think there is a possibility that May, who is going to meet Juncker tomorrow will be trying to tweak the deal along those lines.
An eleventh hour thing to get it over the line.
Having a trade deal does not solve the NI problem.
You are dreaming
Not now it doesn't but in two years there may be some case to be made for a technological solution.
No deal is the default outcome if nothing is signed off before 29th March. May triggering A50 was stupid because she has essentially strapped a timebomb to the country without formulating a plan for defusing it first.
It doesn't need parliamentary approval - our status as an EU Member ceases immediately on that day.
There is no technological solution , it doesn't solve the SM problem, ECJ and furthermore there's no transition unless the deal is agreed now.
So why are we leaving again?
Let's have a referendum in a couple of years then when the solutions actually exist then hey?
Canada+++ has already been mooted by the EU. Canada are not in the SM yet can now trade with the EU. In ALL trade deals there has to be regulatory alignment by default. The only issue will be the NI border - which I think is solvable in time.
As far as transition is concerned I'm beginning to think she'll get this through. It would be easier if she could get the sticking points amended but in the end I think the ERG will be worried about Brexit grinding to a total halt. Then probably a Labour government that will almost certainly reverse everything, get voted out the following election by pissed off leavers but will nevertheless have consigned any chance of exiting the EU to the running of another Referendum which won't happen in any of the ERG's lifetimes.
The DUP will come round (or at the very least abstain) because of the threat of a Labour government with Corbyn at it's head.
The Labour position is calculated so anyone can see whatever they want in it. But the above ambiguity wouldn't survive an election campaign and nor should it. You have to know what you are going to be voting for.
I don't care for the religious undertone to Rees-Mogg & Lilley's words today:
Rees-Mogg said:
Their beliefs are, I suspect, merely the respectable dressing on their self-righteousness...as with so many 'religious' politicians.Lilley said:
Two years ago they said that exact same thing. Are they half way through building this magic machine at the moment?
Canada +++ is just a glorified trade deal. The EU have trade deals with Canada, Japan and loads of other countries who are not in the SM or the CU.
These countries are third countries with different regulations. You can have a trade deal with who you like once the UK has left. If the Uk ships something to Australia the goods have to comply with Australian regulations otherwise you can't ship it, doesn't matter if there is a trade deal or not
There is still a border between them.
Confusing trade deals and the CU and SM has led to all these problems and the ERG either don't understand or are deliberately trying to mislead everyone.
I do not see how the NI problem can ever be resolved without NI becoming part of the EU.
I think the Tories have been disastrous but don't see Labour under Corbyn being in power.
Last edited: