Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
thats the spirit neil
Of course Neil Warnock voted Leave.
fecking Warnock! I absolutely love it.
Have we ever had a 3 way vote in Parliament before, because honestly that might be the easiest solution. Whichever gets the most votes wins.
Unfortunately I think Colin is representative of about 40% of the country - bumptious, opinionated, ignorant, doesn’t like Johnny Foreigner...
Neil Warnock possibly the least surprising Leave voter in English football. He is also (entirely coincidemtally I'm sure) one of the biggest cnuts in English football.
''Once the country knows what they're doing and we get an agreement it will be straight forward.''
Yeah once the two things are are not straight forward are out of the way it will be straight forward, great logic Neil.
"They took our eyebrows!"
We should be happy there is unlikely to be a second referendum as it would be far more bitter and divisive than even the first one. Regardless of the result no one would accept it as valid and it could then cause other constitutional issues as well.
I agree those are the options.
In my opinion the Conservative party at grass roots level and at least 100 MPs are absolutely against May's deal. This issues are it is absolutely not Brexit as argued for in 2016, is likely designed so after a couple of years of failed trade talks there would be a second referendum, and is essentially remaining but without a vote on anything, and therefore vastly inferior just to staying in.
The only person it actually benefits is Theresa May. Not impossible she'll get it through but it's also likely if she does the DUP will pull out of the confidence and supply agreement and the government will be toast anyway.
No deal is opposed by 500 ish MPs in Parliament I think. It's difficult to see how the government could survive a confidence vote if they attempt to go this route. This would likely lead to a national government rather than a GE in my opinion and article 50 being revoked.
Difficult to see how we avoid ending up at the third point ultimately at the moment. Things are fluid though.
Apparently Hillary Benn might withdraw the amendment that rules out no deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46831229
Because it might succeed
and get passed by a few votes
And labour see it as more important to deal a big defeat to may from her own brexiteer rebellion than you know actually pass a motion ruling out no deal
The state of British politics
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46831229
Because it might succeed
and get passed by a few votesAnd labour see it as more important to deal a big defeat to may from her own brexiteer rebellion than you know actually pass a motion ruling out no deal
The state of British politics
Apparently Hillary Benn might withdraw the amendment that rules out no deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46831229
Because it might succeed
And labour see it as more important to deal a big defeat to may from her own brexiteer rebellion than you know actually pass a motion ruling out no deal
The state of British politics
How could it even work though from a legal point of view?
Legislation has been passed, we leave on to WTO trade terms in parliament does nothing. I don't see how this amendment changes that.
We already know 500/650 MPs do not support no deal. If those MPs can pass this amendment then they can also stop no deal happening anyway so it's pointless.
If an amendment passes blocking no deal it does to the best of my knowledge change things....
Please keep in mind I am pretty sure there would be legal challenges and a lot of parliament protocol to wade through... But in essence I think this is what then happens
The government is compelled to take all actions in its power to prevent a no deal and if they are seen not to then an MP could raise a motion forcing a vote upon specific action
They could also hold the government in contempt of parliament
All actions are basically
1.Pursue new deal (EU dependent and the EU wont)
2. Force a vote to make the government apply to extend A50... Likley EU says only for a ge or a 2nd ref... (Would need 2/3 votes to force ge so won't happen... But could force a yes no vote on a second ref)
3. If it gets to a few days before march 29th they could force a straight vote to cancel A50 unilaterally
Basically to stop this the government would have to submit a plan that said leave with no deal and get a commons majority for it
Essentially it takes the narrative and options away from the government... Of course somebody would have to find a majority for extend A50 or even cancel A50 but with 20 or so remain conservatives then it's far more likley than the government passing a no deal majority
Last edited:
You can just imagine him saying, 'Abroad? I never go abroad. What's wrong with a caravan holiday in Cornwall? The missus loves it?'
Lots of sunday morning stuff as usual today. One thing I don't think is being considered enough it's what might happen if Barnier issues a helpful 'clarification' (definitely not a re-negotiation, oh no) on the backstop. Could be before the vote, but more likely soon after, assuming May loses. I doubt Barnier wants no deal, I don't think most MPs do, it could enable quite a few MPs to change their vote without losing face. I'm not claiming this as the most likely outcome, but it's a possible.
Is anyone surprised Neil Warnock voted Leave? I'd be gobsmacked if he does not vote UKIP regularly.
MPs already know they are going to do this with an exchange of letters from EU to UK. They don't carry any legal weight though so it's just fluff.
Barnier and the EU definitely do not want no deal.
They believe however, that due to the huge majority of MPs in Parliament that also do not want no deal it is very unlikely to occur. I actually think the withdrawal agreement, the ECJ ruling on the UKs right to revoke article 50 (unprecedented in 3 days) and the lack of will on behalf of the EU to renegotiate is all part of a strategy. They realise if they just sit and do nothing it's very likely Brexit will be cancelled one way or the other.
To be honest I don't know if that's a tall enough ladder for enough of the brexiteers who have gone public to climb off their very high horses
To be fair I'm surprised he bothered to vote
I too doubt the hard brexiters would change their vote, but the ones who say 'we must honour the referendum' could. There would still be brexit, just on May's deal. The problem is May would still need some Labour votes as well, and I admit to complete confusion on that, no one knows what Labour's position is on brexit, including them, it's an unanswerable question.
Indeed... May thinks as time runs out people will think they have to take her deal
Remainers think as time runs out with no deal A50 will have to be extended (or scrapped) for a 2nd referendum
Brexiteers think as the clock runs down they can force a no deal outcome
And I think Corbyn might be the only person left who thinks he can force a general election (and renegotiate a deal)
The "clarification" was May's way of delaying the vote from December to January.
Unless people can't understand English I don't see what the clarification is about.
People still think the EU are going to blink - nobody wants no deal but giving anything in on the 4 freedoms or the backstop to the UK would have far worse consequences than no deal to the EU.
I think the only way they give on the backstop is if Ireland asks them to (to avoid a no deal).... And I don't see that happening
Yes it's mainly about Ireland but also it's also the EU's border with the UK. I don't see how possibly the EU can allow time limit. Yes they'll try to negotiate a deal as quickly as possible but even with that, unless the UK are in the Customs Union a trade deal doesn't solve the issue.
As I've said all along a real Brexit is not possible without breaking the GFA.
The clarification hasn't been made yet Paul. Barnier has said he is prepared to make one, we are waiting to see if does and what it will be.
Perhaps a daft question...
But if we unilaterally revoked article 50 next week (which the court case said we could)
Is there anything that stops us resubmitting another exit letter and triggering A50 again the next week
And if we could do that would we still only have 80 days or would we go back to 2 years timeframe to leave?
But if we unilaterally revoked article 50 next week (which the court case said we could)
Is there anything that stops us resubmitting another exit letter and triggering A50 again the next week
And if we could do that would we still only have 80 days or would we go back to 2 years timeframe to leave?
But what do you expect him to say, something along the lines of "we will try to negotiate a deal as quickly as possible".
One thing the Brexiters have got right is that the UK will be stuck in limbo indefinitely but the alternative is even worse unless they cancel the whole thing.
You could but you can be quite sure the EU has said to May that if they do this then any deal is off the table and no negotiation will take place following the triggering of A50 again. It will be a hard Brexit or EU membership. The EU have better things to do than negotiate with what seems to be like a petulant child for another 2 years. The EU have many other issues to deal with that need addressed.
Last edited:
Agree with this.
Yes that's the heart of it. Barnier has rightly said the EU will support Ireland's position all the way, but if, after May loses a vote, he goes to them and says 'We will of course support you all the way but the situation as it stands is that Britain is about to crash out and there will be the hard border none of us want, can we issue a clarification helpful to May?' then the ball would be in Ireland's court. And it's not a ball anyone wants of course.
To those who say a clarification won't change the legal position, well one won't change the text but it can change the meaning and how it is subsequently interpreted. In any case I'm not really into the 'this treaty will last forever' thing. Over the decades and centuries treaties and agreements come and treaties and agreements go. Nafta is created, Nafta might be gone. Nothing just stays the same.
My understanding of the decision, is that the member state would have the same rights that he had before the withdrawal notice.
So in principal it should reset everything and the member state could submit a new withdrawal letter whenever it wants.
Yes I think you would say if it's going to be a hard brexit it gives you 2 years to properly prepare for that and not look to negotiate the terms of brexit just accept it's a hard brexit... Of course this gives the EU the headache they have to give us the mep's back and no doubt the sabre rattling of we have a veto and will block all EU legistlation untill we have agreed air traffic access etc .... Would be messy but probably less messy than an unprepared hard brexit
I'm sure there will be a whole team of people cleverer and more knowledgeable than me on that one Paul, but something that May can put forward as meaning the backstop will not necessarily be permanent. This idea to be taken in the context of my above post on the Irish position of course.
I'm not saying any of this will happen, there are only idiots claiming to know the future, I'm saying it's a real possibility.
That was also my thoughts... Which makes it a pretty poor bit of legistlation if the leaving party wanted to be a petulant little toddler (with a Veto) demanding their own way
I would hope we are better than that as a country but a quick look at the caliber of political debate we are having in the commons makes me think otherwise
Yes but as per my post before, it's not just about Ireland, it's the whole EU's border with the UK.
No-one knows what's going to happen even on Tuesday, everything I think is based on logic and practical possibilities.
What I don't think he is going to do is weaken the fundamental reason of the EU, but of course everything is possible.
Yup, the UK could simply wait for the next budget period to start and send a withdrawal notice, things could get ugly pretty quickly. Art.50 will have to be modified at some point.
Guardian article saying the EU have informally offered to extend to July if we do request and a subsequent longer extension on offer for a general election or referendum.
That's significant. I wonder how much talk there is via back channels with the remainers from the EU.
That's significant. I wonder how much talk there is via back channels with the remainers from the EU.
And the award for word pamphlet goes to...
