Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Berbaclass said:
Here’s one for the pessimists.

What comes with a worst case scenario of a hard Brexit?

What kind of damage can we expect?
Click to expand...

As long as you don't have a house, job, pension or any other investments you'll be fine.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
It won't happen because it won't pass through the commons. It's fun watching you guys propheseying doom and gloom, though.
Click to expand...
.
I don't get this 'it won't pass through the commons' - there is an agreement on the table which won't cause an apocalypse. But there's no other deal available so if the existing deal is voted down the only choice is No deal or cancel Brexit.
Surely No Deal means No Deal.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
It is totally impossible to project how the EU would respond if the UK was united in accepting a no deal scenario. Everything I have seen here are opinions based on what they *think* would happen, and what they *think* the consequences will be.

Pretending to be an authority on the unknown is what newspapers major in.
Click to expand...

It is not totally impossible to predict some minimum effects that could happen. Not at all impossible. And the minimum likely effects are going to make people's lives much harder.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
.
I don't get this 'it won't pass through the commons' - there is an agreement on the table which won't cause an apocalypse. But there's no other deal available so if the existing deal is voted down the only choice is No deal or cancel Brexit.
Surely No Deal means No Deal.
Click to expand...

Labour are only interested in toppling the government. They wouldn't back any deal that divides Tories.
No deal is an option, but no one will back it, and the EU know it, so they can demand what they like.

We are heading for a second referendum, that is what I think is going to happen.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
It is not totally impossible to predict some minimum effects that could happen. Not at all impossible. And the minimum likely effects are going to make people's lives much harder.
Click to expand...

True. There's nothing wrong in predicting what might happen, but all factors have to be taken into consideration, which doesn't happen.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Labour are only interested in toppling the government. They wouldn't back any deal that divides Tories.
No deal is an option, but no one will back it, and the EU know it, so they can demand what they like.

We are heading for a second referendum, that is what I think is going to happen.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree Labour is only interested in toppling the government and won't back any deal - their idea of a deal is even more fantasist than the Tories.

I don't suppose anyone wants No Deal apart from the fanatics but even if there were another referendum or even a GE the three choices of No Deal, the existing offer or cancel Brexit will still be there and at some point a decision has to be made.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Labour are only interested in toppling the government. They wouldn't back any deal that divides Tories.
No deal is an option, but no one will back it, and the EU know it, so they can demand what they like.

We are heading for a second referendum, that is what I think is going to happen.
Click to expand...

It isn't really an active option though - it's just nothingness. What it means is we leave without having reached any agreements on key matters, which is inherently fecking stupid when we'll have to make new trade deals etc without having any contingency plans in place.
 
If the EU was told there is going to be no deal, the other member states would put pressure on the EU to make concessions. But with the UK unable to accept no deal, the EU can sit back and watch our miserable wretches beg them for a deal.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
If the EU was told there is going to be no deal, the other member states would put pressure on the EU to make concessions. But with the UK unable to accept no deal, the EU can sit back and watch our miserable wretches beg them for a deal.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they would.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
If the EU was told there is going to be no deal, the other member states would put pressure on the EU to make concessions. But with the UK unable to accept no deal, the EU can sit back and watch our miserable wretches beg them for a deal.
Click to expand...

You sound like IDS. The EU are not going to back down on the 4 freedoms or the Irish border. I've no idea why you should believe this.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
If the EU was told there is going to be no deal, the other member states would put pressure on the EU to make concessions. But with the UK unable to accept no deal, the EU can sit back and watch our miserable wretches beg them for a deal.
Click to expand...
You're assuming those other members see the UK as being important .

Even Ireland haven't asked the EU for concessions and we are totally fecked too if there's no deal.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You sound like IDS. The EU are not going to back down on the 4 freedoms or the Irish border. I've no idea why you should believe this.
Click to expand...

To be fair he also determinedly stated multiple times that we'd start trade talks last October. That's the interesting thing about threads this long, when you arrogantly mock posters your own post history better look damn good.
 
Smores said:
To be fair he also determinedly stated multiple times that we'd start trade talks last October. That's the interesting thing about threads this long, when you arrogantly mock posters your own post history better look damn good.
Click to expand...

It's always fun to trace how Brexiteers have adapted their arguments throughout the process. Gradually this has gone from something with the potential to transform the UK for the better to something that won't quite be as disastrous as everyone's making out.
 
Wibble said:
We aren't a United Kingdom and never have been. We are England and a bunch of invade and conquered other countries.

Basically we just don't play well with others.
Click to expand...

This is a wholly inaccurate picture of the relationship between England and Scotland which, despite what Trainspotting fans tell us, was never a colony and was a willing and fully engaged partner in empire in order to further it's own colonial desires. The idea that Scotland was a colony is a nationalist myth perpetuated for obvious reasons and in fact contributed more, per capita, to the expansion of empire than the English did. The Scots were at the very heart of it.
 
Barca84 said:
This is a wholly inaccurate picture of the relationship between England and Scotland which, despite what Trainspotting fans tell us, was never a colony and was a willing and fully engaged partner in empire in order to further it's own colonial desires. The idea that Scotland was a colony is a nationalist myth perpetuated for obvious reasons and in fact contributed more, per capita, to the expansion of empire than the English did. The Scots were at the very heart of it.
Click to expand...

Most reasonably-minded Scots (even those supportive of independence) accept this and accept we were heavily involved in slavery etc. It's only really a small minority who try to pretend that it wasn't the case.
 
Cheesy said:
It's always fun to trace how Brexiteers have adapted their arguments throughout the process. Gradually this has gone from something with the potential to transform the UK for the better to something that won't quite be as disastrous as everyone's making out.
Click to expand...

Which isn't that unusual but it's the fact they then mock others for predictions backed up by the treasury, businesses, economists and do so arrogantly. Most discussion in here is backed up in some fashion or other.

No doubt this I'll be that unwelcoming leftists being mean to the right leaning nonsense :nervous:
 
Cheesy said:
It's always fun to trace how Brexiteers have adapted their arguments throughout the process. Gradually this has gone from something with the potential to transform the UK for the better to something that won't quite be as disastrous as everyone's making out.
Click to expand...

That's because its gone from the mansion house speech, to cheques, to May's shit all out surrender deal.
 
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/the-meaningful-vote-deferred-what-now/

The “meaningful vote” deferred: What now?
December 13, 2018 Graeme Cowie


On Monday 10 December, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons she would no longer be asking it to vote on the motion to approve her deal with the EU on Tuesday 11 December. The House had been expected, under the Business Motion it approved the previous week, to debate the approval of the negotiated withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship for two further sitting days and to vote on it on the evening of Tuesday 11 December.

The Prime Minister is now seeking further “assurances” from the EU as to the legal status and effect of the Northern Ireland backstop provision, which means it is not clear whether the Government believes that it still has “political agreement” with the EU.

So where are we now in terms of the approval process? This Insight looks at what might happen next.

A frozen debate, but no decision
The House did not formally take any decision on either the Government’s approval motion or any amendments to it. By deferring the debate, but not specifying when it will resume, the Government has effectively “frozen” that debate. No resolution has been adopted, but equally no motion or amendment has been rejected. Simply put, the Commons has not taken a decision.

This means that section 13(4) of the Withdrawal Act is not (yet) engaged: the Government does not currently have to make a statement as to any contingency plans it has in the absence of Parliamentary approval for its negotiated deal.

What significance does “political agreement” have?
Under the Withdrawal Act, the presence or absence of “political agreement” or “agreement in principle” between the UK Government and the EU is important for two distinct reasons.

Firstly, if the Government wishes to ratify a withdrawal agreement, one of the things it must first do is make a “statement that political agreement has been reached” for the purposes of section 13(1)(a) of the Act. This is one of three documents that must be laid before Parliament, alongside the “negotiated withdrawal agreement” and the “framework for the future relationship”. The Government made a statement that political agreement had been reached on 26 November 2018.

Secondly, if the Government concludes that “no agreement in principle can be reached”, or if we reach 21 January and “no agreement in principle has been reached”, then the Government must make a statement as to how it intends to proceed, and then hold a debate for the Commons to discuss its implications. This is also, separately, what the Government must do if the Commons formally decides not to approve the deal (as explained earlier).

Do we still have “political agreement” between the UK Government and the EU?
Given that the Prime Minister is now seeking further “assurances” from the EU as to the legal status and effect of the Northern Ireland Backstop provision, it is not clear whether the Government believes that it still has “political agreement” with the EU for the purposes of section 13(1)(a).

If it does still have that agreement, and its statement of 26 November to that effect still holds, it suggests that the Government is not legally required, as things stand, to make any statement on 21 January 2019 in the absence of further political developments. Any commitment to make a statement to the House on contingency plans before or by 21 January would be a political one, not the result of a legal obligation.

However, in both the Prime Minister’s remarks on 10 December and those of DExEU Minister Robin Walker on 11 December, the Government appears to be attaching continued legal significance to the deadline of 21 January 2019. Theresa May mentioned “21 January” on four occasions in the Chamber, and during the Urgent Question debate, Robin Walker said the following (emphasis added):

“In the unlikely and highly undesirable circumstances that, as of 21 January, there is no deal before the House, the Government would bring a statement to the House and arrange for a debate, as specified by the law.”

The fact that the Government is still treating the 21 January 2019 as a legally relevant deadline as regards what it must do in Parliament implies that political agreement may already have lapsed. Alternatively, it may suggest that such agreement could lapse (depending on the outcome of the Prime Minister’s further discussions with the EU) at some point between now and 21 January 2019.

If political agreement has lapsed and is not re-established what must happen?
If political agreement has lapsed, and no new statement of political agreement is reached, the Government must, within five calendar days of 21 January, make a statement setting out how it proposes to proceed. It must then move a motion for debate on its statement within five sitting days of 21 January.

When might the Government bring back a deal?
The Government could, legally, bring back a proposal to approve a deal any time before the UK formally leaves the EU. At the moment, that would mean any time before 29 March 2019. However, there are other requirements the Government must meet before it can ratify any deal. Most importantly it must also procure the passage through Parliament of the proposed EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill to implement the deal in domestic law. The Withdrawal Act 2018 requires this legislation to be passed before the Government can ratify the withdrawal agreement.

The Government has, however, suggested that it will bring back any deal it wishes Parliament to approve “before 21 January”. DExEU Minister Robin Walker said on Tuesday (emphasis added):

“Put simply, in keeping with the clear intention of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government will ensure that the question whether to accept an agreement is brought back to this House before 21 January. If Parliament accepts that deal, we will introduce the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement in domestic legislation.”

This is a political commitment that goes beyond the legal requirements of the Withdrawal Act. The Act does not require a “meaningful vote” to take place on any deal before the 21 January.

For example, the Government could, legally, have made a statement that political agreement has been reached on 20 January and then scheduled a “meaningful vote” for some point in February or March. This would have superseded any requirement to make a statement on its contingency plans, even though the Commons had not expressed a view on that deal by 21 January.

There are only two hard constraints on the holding of the “meaningful vote”, whether by resuming the frozen debate or bringing forward a new one. The first is that the Government must “so far as is practicable” seek to hold that vote before the European Parliament votes on whether to consent to the deal (we had expected them not to do this until early March). Secondly, the vote must take place before the UK formally exits the EU, since the withdrawal agreement must be ratified before then.
Click to expand...

I do wonder how late they might string this out to leave the choice as hard brexit or mays deal.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Labour are only interested in toppling the government. They wouldn't back any deal that divides Tories.
No deal is an option, but no one will back it, and the EU know it, so they can demand what they like.

We are heading for a second referendum, that is what I think is going to happen.
Click to expand...

And what is wrong with Labour trying to topple the government.
Isn't that what opposition parties are supposed to do.
Or does that only apply when the Tory party is the opposition....
 
Buster15 said:
And what is wrong with Labour trying to topple the government.
Isn't that what opposition parties are supposed to do.
Or does that only apply when the Tory party is the opposition....
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.
It does present a complication however.
 
sun_tzu said:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/the-meaningful-vote-deferred-what-now/
I do wonder how late they might string this out to leave the choice as hard brexit or mays deal.
Click to expand...
That could well be the effect but I don't think it's the intention. I think May wants May's deal and is just trying to achieve agreement on that as best she can. Which she probably won't of course, but I don't think it's some sort of deliberate stringing out to help the hard brexiters, who she disagrees with.
 
Smores said:
To be fair he also determinedly stated multiple times that we'd start trade talks last October. That's the interesting thing about threads this long, when you arrogantly mock posters your own post history better look damn good.
Click to expand...

It's why I've been consistent throughout.
 
Last edited:
Any leaks about the Tory debauchery at their Xmas party last night?

May going around with a glass of champers in one hand and giving the finger to her colleagues with the other?
 
Buster15 said:
And what is wrong with Labour trying to topple the government.
Isn't that what opposition parties are supposed to do.
Or does that only apply when the Tory party is the opposition....
Click to expand...
One would certainly expect an opposition to try and topple a government, by offering a better realistic alternative. Labour have consistently offered no alternative on Brexit at all apart from an impossible have cake and eat it plan which absolutely no one thinks will happen, not even Labour themselves.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
So who erects a border if no one wants one?
Click to expand...

The UK will. If they don't, then either (a) they don't have any borders with any other country in the world under WTO rules, or (b) they reject WTO rules and become effectively a pariah state like North Korea.

This is basic stuff. It's your move.
 
711 said:
That could well be the effect but I don't think it's the intention. I think May wants May's deal and is just trying to achieve agreement on that as best she can. Which she probably won't of course, but I don't think it's some sort of deliberate stringing out to help the hard brexiters, who she disagrees with.
Click to expand...
It must feel frustrating to many. We have 27 countries plus the PM of the 28th and say 75% of that Government's MP's that would pass this deal.

When this started I would never thought there could be anything like that degree of agreement.

This is all about the DUP and Tory headbangers.

Whatever tinkering she brings back is not going to satisfy most of them.

She should declare a free vote and maybe pick up some moderate Labour votes.
 
Minimalist said:
Any leaks about the Tory debauchery at their Xmas party last night?

May going around with a glass of champers in one hand and giving the finger to her colleagues with the other?
Click to expand...
I heard that TM cheekily edged her skirt up above the knee to do the okey-cokey - even worse than running through wheat fields. What a 'serrlag'
 
Honest John said:
It must feel frustrating to many. We have 27 countries plus the PM of the 28th and say 75% of that Government's MP's that would pass this deal.

When this started I would never thought there could be anything like that degree of agreement.

This is all about the DUP and Tory headbangers.

Whatever tinkering she brings back is not going to satisfy most of them.

She should declare a free vote and maybe pick up some moderate Labour votes.
Click to expand...
That's the only plan I can think she has really, and to be fair she can't have had that much time in the last few days to work out how to go about it. I suspect it will be her, and her staff's, christmas holiday project.
 
711 said:
That's the only plan I can think she has really, and to be fair she can't have had that much time in the last few days to work out how to go about it. I suspect it will be her, and her staff's, christmas holiday project.
Click to expand...

Prime Minister, have you considered...killing all the poor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.