Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Wibble said:
Surely the only real options, not all mutually exclusive, are

1) Negotiate a delay - this would require a better reason that "we want to keep bickering about what colour unicorn to ride to backstop negotiations".
2) Withdraw A50
3) New referendum (with or without a GE first)
4) No deal exit

Renegotiate backstop isn't one of those options. The EU may have mentioned this before.
Click to expand...
'4' isn't going to happen.

'1' is just kicking the can down the road.

That leaves '2' and '3' as the inevitable choices, whether they happen with or without '1'.

I don't think any Parliament can unilaterally take option '2' without instigating a massive riot. '3' is looking more and more like the only feasible way out. It could even be sold as a Dunkirk style tactical retreat if they wanted to appeal to WW2-obsessed sensibilities.

The current political machinations are just about setting the groundwork for the Government to be able to go back the the British people with an excuse for their failures.

The bottom line is that the UK electorate voted for our politicians to try and come up with an exit plan. They made that attempt but not without a few huge question marks. It's only sensible to democratically ask the public for a further steer.
 
Dante said:
'4' isn't going to happen.

'1' is just kicking the can down the road.

That leaves '2' and '3' as the inevitable choices, whether they happen with or without '1'.

I don't think any Parliament can unilaterally take option '2' without instigating a massive riot. '3' is looking more and more like the only feasible way out. It could even be sold as a Dunkirk style tactical retreat if they wanted to appeal to WW2-obsessed sensibilities.

The current political machinations are just about setting the groundwork for the Government to be able to go back the the British people with an excuse for their failures.

The bottom line is that the UK electorate voted for our politicians to try and come up with an exit plan. They made that attempt but not without a few huge question marks. It's only sensible to democratically ask the public for a further steer.
Click to expand...

Why are you ruling out no deal as a possibility? Out of interest.
 
Dante said:
'4' isn't going to happen.

'1' is just kicking the can down the road.

That leaves '2' and '3' as the inevitable choices, whether they happen with or without '1'.

I don't think any Parliament can unilaterally take option '2' without instigating a massive riot. '3' is looking more and more like the only feasible way out. It could even be sold as a Dunkirk style tactical retreat if they wanted to appeal to WW2-obsessed sensibilities.

The current political machinations are just about setting the groundwork for the Government to be able to go back the the British people with an excuse for their failures.

The bottom line is that the UK electorate voted for our politicians to try and come up with an exit plan. They made that attempt but not without a few huge question marks. It's only sensible to democratically ask the public for a further steer.
Click to expand...

Not only is no deal quite possible but it is currently the most likely outcome. The money markets agree.

Of course I don't want that to happen.
 
diarm said:
Just out of interest, what is the laughing face in response to here?
Click to expand...

Just that its a farce. May voting against a clause the UK agreed, in agreement she signed off on, to get the same response on changing it from the EU she got in December. Dark comedy I guess.
 
Wibble said:
I'd say there is close to zero chance of this.
Click to expand...

I think this is what HM would like with her tried and tested recipe for cooperation. All parties working together for a solution.

Brexit should not be dealt with on party lines. Once the referendum was done and Brexit was accepted by the political parties, the whole process should have been done with a cross party team. A consensus should have been found before even issuing A50.

May thought she could railroad whatever through Parliament and didn't need to do that.
 
The front pages of the daily newspapers sum up the issue with this country, they're not remotely tied to reality and for the 80% or more who don't follow proceedings they paint a false picture.
For another thread but then people say Labour can't blame the papers :wenger:

May now has to give up on her red lines of no custom union or no border down the irish sea. Then we're down to it being solely on Labour whether they want to back brexit on those terms, the former they might the latter they won't.

Will people forgive a Labour that takes them out of the EU? I doubt it
 
Last edited:
MikeUpNorth said:
Yep, agree with all that. It would be curious to see what would actually happen to the border in a 'no deal' scenario. Sadly, we might well find out pretty quickly.

But I also do think MPs have a point that an indefinite backstop is not tolerable either. It would very likely become the de facto future arrangement in itself. At every contentious point in the trade negotiations, the EU could just say, 'fine, if you don't want to accept what we propose, then you can just stay in the backstop'. It would kill any negotiating leverage the UK has, and it has very little leverage to begin with.

I've no idea what a conceivable compromise could be. I doubt there is one. The whole thing is an entirely predictable mess.
Click to expand...

Yes i suppose thats true. One side basically needs to give the other the benefit of the doubt to get past it. Your politicians are completely impossible to trust so ...
It should apply only to northern ireland really. The rest can willingly sign up to the same deal but making it a necessity just isn't helpful really. Maybe make a clause where the stormont assembly can ... do something?
Northern Ireland shouldn't be a bargaining chip in your trade negotiations really.
I dont think it matters tbh. Your joke counter offer from yesterday got a majority of 16 votes a lot of which were gained on the basis that the withdrawal agreement would be reopened so its not just the backstop that you want changed. Really i think the ERG want a no deal brexit and this is a convenient delaying tactic that if we agreed to they'd immediately stop supporting.
May needs to make a deal with labour tbh. Her biggest obstacles to making a deal are the ERG and DUP.
 
Good morning BREXIT addicts!
This article sums the current position up rather nicely: Is it Stupidity or Cynical Vandalism?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/may-brexit-brady-amendment

"There are two possible reasons for pursuing that strategy. One is stupidity: failure to grasp what the negotiations so far have actually been about and how May’s deal was their logical outcome. The second is cynical vandalism: knowing that the plan will fail and hoping, when it does, to pin blame for a chaotic no-deal Brexit on Brussels intransigence. In truth it would be the fruition of Eurosceptic zealotry."

"Such obtuseness infuriates continental leaders more than the intent to quit their club. It was not a secret that Britain had a Eurosceptic political culture, even if the referendum result was shocking and upsetting. But what was also obvious in Brussels, Berlin and Paris was the gap between the idea of Brexit advertised by the "leave campaign – the narcotic rush of words such as “freedom” and “sovereignty” – and the practical business of extricating Britain from EU structures. Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and others presumed this yawning chasm would be recognised by their British counterpart as a hazard. They expected May to start building bridges from the leavers’ fantasy island to the reality of what was available in negotiations with a bloc of 27 countries – the imbalance of power and the calculus of damage limitation."
 
golden_blunder said:
As an aside why are the ERG so powerful? I hadn’t heard of them before brexit
Click to expand...

They've been there for a long time; since Maastricht this has been their sole focus. The lack of a government majority in the last 2 years gives them power. nothing can be passed without their consent. May is a hostage.
 
golden_blunder said:
As an aside why are the ERG so powerful? I hadn’t heard of them before brexit
Click to expand...

Government only has 10 seat coalition majority with DUP. 30 MPs in ERG I think.

If they don't vote no conservative government.

Also reason May hasn't just agreed customs union. Government would fall.

Have to bare in mind, if May had huge majority we would be stuck with the WA and ERG wouldn't matter.
 
So if as predicted the EU tell her they will not budge on the WA, what happens then?

Does she go back to Parliament and say "they arent moving" and then try and vote through her original deal again?
 
Rooney24 said:
So if as predicted the EU tell her they will not budge on the WA, what happens then?

Does she go back to Parliament and say "they arent moving" and then try and vote through her original deal again?
Click to expand...

She already said there'd be another vote in February I think? So I guess we see if getting knocked back by the EU on this changes the politics of things enough to make another option (extending A50, a GE, whatever) more viable than it currently is?
 
Rooney24 said:
So if as predicted the EU tell her they will not budge on the WA, what happens then?

Does she go back to Parliament and say "they arent moving" and then try and vote through her original deal again?
Click to expand...

She spends the next 2 weeks trying to get concessions then they'll be voting on a deal again on February 14th ish
 
sullydnl said:
She already said there'd be another vote in February I think? So I guess we see if getting knocked back by the EU on this changes the politics of things enough to make another option (extending A50, a GE, whatever) more viable than it currently is?
Click to expand...

Not at all, extending article 50, peoples vote or a GE died with the Cooper amendment yesterday.

There's only two choices on the table now, deal or no deal.
 
foolsgold said:
Not at all, extending article 50, peoples vote or a GE died with the Cooper amendment yesterday.

There's only two choices on the table now, deal or no deal.
Click to expand...

Nah, they didn't really die, they were just put to sleep for now. As the statement from the EU leaders yesterday pointed out, an A50 extension would still be considered under the right circumstances. In the context of a looming no deal (against which there is a majority in the UK, even if they don't know what they want instead) alternative options can be reawakened as the politics of the situation shifts. As the saying goes, a week is a long time in politics and there are long weeks ahead. For example, it's not that hard to imagine a weak government collapsing in those circumstances.

As is a no deal is the clear favourite but a GE, extension of A50 or both haven't suddenly become impossible. Though a second referendum seems a fantasy notion at this point.
 
foolsgold said:
Not at all, extending article 50, peoples vote or a GE died with the Cooper amendment yesterday.

There's only two choices on the table now, deal or no deal.
Click to expand...

This is false, there will be further votes. The government only have a majority of 10, is liable to collapse via losing a confidence vote if things go really pear shaped, then anything could happen.
 
At this point the EU should just stop negotiations with the UK up until the UK ratifies the deal they had previously agreed upon. When the UK economy tanks following no brexit then they will come around to accept anything offered to them
 
Mb194dc said:
I think this is what HM would like with her tried and tested recipe for cooperation. All parties working together for a solution.

Brexit should not be dealt with on party lines. Once the referendum was done and Brexit was accepted by the political parties, the whole process should have been done with a cross party team. A consensus should have been found before even issuing A50.

May thought she could railroad whatever through Parliament and didn't need to do that.
Click to expand...

Not only that, she thought she could use it to increase her majority, which she fecked up royally. Destructively deluded.
 
foolsgold said:
Not at all, extending article 50, peoples vote or a GE died with the Cooper amendment yesterday.

There's only two choices on the table now, deal or no deal.
Click to expand...

Think you've bought some of the spin there. The only reason the Brady amendment passed and Coopers didn't was because there's another opportunity to vote.

This is only about directing the blame, the decisions have just been delayed 2 week.
 
Barnier, when asked what would happen to the border in a no-deal scenario replied that other measures would need to be found to keep the border soft. He was referring to checks away from the border. A journalist mentioned that what he was saying was in fact 'maximum facitiltaion'. Now. It is not unreasonable for the UK to draw from that statement that the EU has a concept of how to keep the border soft in a no-deal scenario. So why the need for a backstop? Now either Barnier spoke out of turn, or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he said it deliberately to nudge things along.

As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
 
Honest John said:
Barnier, when asked what would happen to the border in a no-deal scenario replied that other measures would need to be found to keep the border soft. He was referring to checks away from the border. A journalist mentioned that what he was saying was in fact 'maximum facitiltaion'. Now. It is not unreasonable for the UK to draw from that statement that the EU has a concept of how to keep the border soft in a no-deal scenario. So why the need for a backstop? Now either Barnier spoke out of turn, or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he said it deliberately to nudge things along.

As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
Click to expand...

I'd love to line up the ERG and give each one a swift kick in the balls in fairness.

I thought the problem with 'maximum facilitation' was always that we don't have the technology to implement it currently and even if it is there (I have no idea personally if it is to be honest) that we now have about 2 months to actually be able to set it up, which seems difficult.
 
Honest John said:
Barnier, when asked what would happen to the border in a no-deal scenario replied that other measures would need to be found to keep the border soft. He was referring to checks away from the border. A journalist mentioned that what he was saying was in fact 'maximum facitiltaion'. Now. It is not unreasonable for the UK to draw from that statement that the EU has a concept of how to keep the border soft in a no-deal scenario. So why the need for a backstop? Now either Barnier spoke out of turn, or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he said it deliberately to nudge things along.

As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
Click to expand...

I think hes trying to avoid saying we'd put up a hard border. Which is what would have to happen at some point.
 
africanspur said:
I'd love to line up the ERG and give each one a swift kick in the balls in fairness.

I thought the problem with 'maximum facilitation' was always that we don't have the technology to implement it currently and even if it is there (I have no idea personally if it is to be honest) that we now have about 2 months to actually be able to set it up, which seems difficult.
Click to expand...

I thought maximum facilitation and technology were 2 different solutions tbh. I thought the problem with maximum facilitation is it leaves the UK collecting tariffs on the EU's behalf (which they dont like) and would cost about double your annual EU payment every year (and still lead to a pile of delays as its more an issue of quantity of trucks going and forth than the length of time each one takes to pass through).
 
Honest John said:
Barnier, when asked what would happen to the border in a no-deal scenario replied that other measures would need to be found to keep the border soft. He was referring to checks away from the border. A journalist mentioned that what he was saying was in fact 'maximum facitiltaion'. Now. It is not unreasonable for the UK to draw from that statement that the EU has a concept of how to keep the border soft in a no-deal scenario. So why the need for a backstop? Now either Barnier spoke out of turn, or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he said it deliberately to nudge things along.

As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
Click to expand...

There's no magic trick here. The border controls you are referring to would be costly, disruptive, damaging to the peace process, unpopular to the UK and only possible to maintain as a temporary measure. Which is exactly what the EU see them as being:







In a no deal scenario the onus would still be on the UK to sort out the border as they would still be commited to do so under the GFA. The reality is that they would also have a hard time negotiating any free trade deals (of the sort Ireland and the EU will already have) without sorting it out. For example, if they want a trade deal with the EU then they have to solve the border issue almost as a precondition, which would mean accepting pretty much what's in the WA anyway. Further, they would also face political pressure from the US to resolve the issue as they are intrinsically bound politically to NI too.
 
Last edited:
Honest John said:
Barnier, when asked what would happen to the border in a no-deal scenario replied that other measures would need to be found to keep the border soft. He was referring to checks away from the border. A journalist mentioned that what he was saying was in fact 'maximum facitiltaion'. Now. It is not unreasonable for the UK to draw from that statement that the EU has a concept of how to keep the border soft in a no-deal scenario. So why the need for a backstop? Now either Barnier spoke out of turn, or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he said it deliberately to nudge things along.

As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
Click to expand...

If only we'd had two years to go through this option in some form of negotiation followed by an additional opportunity to challenge the arrangement.

We know the options we've ruled them all out ourselves previously. The only one not ruled out is technology because it's meaningless so it can't be ruled out.

Your comment does spur the thought that maybe what the government are actually doing is a u-turn on one of these options dressed up as an EU concession and victory for us. In fact i think that might be quite likely, i can see them saying "the EU didn't want to give it but we've secured a border down the irish sea!!"
 
Honest John said:
Barnier, when asked what would happen to the border in a no-deal scenario replied that other measures would need to be found to keep the border soft. He was referring to checks away from the border. A journalist mentioned that what he was saying was in fact 'maximum facitiltaion'. Now. It is not unreasonable for the UK to draw from that statement that the EU has a concept of how to keep the border soft in a no-deal scenario. So why the need for a backstop? Now either Barnier spoke out of turn, or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he said it deliberately to nudge things along.

As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
Click to expand...

That's the first option that the UK rejected, checks were supposed to be done at ports and the Irish Sea would be the de facto border.
 
The Tories are utter cnuts.

You have the ERG agreeing to fantasy 'alternative arragements' to run down the clock so they get their beloved no deal.

The rest of the Tories all buzzing over this sense of unity within the party...full well knowing in two weeks the shit is truly going to hit the fan.

With Corbyn's amendment for a Customs Union defeated yesterday, no deal will happen unless there is a second referendum.

Question: If it was put to a vote, would the UK vote to keep NI part of the UK, or let Ireland unify as one country?? As I heard someone say on the radio, could the price of Brexit be NI?
 
Smores said:
If only we'd had two years to go through this option in some form of negotiation followed by an additional opportunity to challenge the arrangement.

We know the options we've ruled them all out ourselves previously. The only one not ruled out is technology because it's meaningless so it can't be ruled out.
Click to expand...

Idd, and their bluff was called on that front as the backstop only comes into effect if theres no technological solutions.
 
Tibs said:
Question: If it was put to a vote, would the UK vote to keep NI part of the UK, or let Ireland unify as one country?? As I heard someone say on the radio, could the price of Brexit be NI?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you could do that without agreement of stormont. I doubt you could. Thats been suspended past 2 years so its not an option.
 
foolsgold said:
Not at all, extending article 50, peoples vote or a GE died with the Cooper amendment yesterday.

There's only two choices on the table now, deal or no deal.
Click to expand...

image.jpg
 
caid said:
I thought maximum facilitation and technology were 2 different solutions tbh. I thought the problem with maximum facilitation is it leaves the UK collecting tariffs on the EU's behalf (which they dont like) and would cost about double your annual EU payment every year (and still lead to a pile of delays as its more an issue of quantity of trucks going and forth than the length of time each one takes to pass through).
Click to expand...

Ah apologies, that may well be the case, I thought they were linked together but I could be mistaken.

I've actually spent the last year or so in Australia and had mostly managed to keep out of this nonsense but am now back (potentially temporarily) and its already frustrating me beyond belief.
 
Looks like we're speeding our way to a no deal Brexit. Great. Can we please finally get rid of the Tories from power in this Country, they've destroyed the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.