This is a bad argument. If things change markedly in the future, such that it affects UK citizens' lives, then more may want to leave. It's not a good reason to leave now.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
This is a bad argument. If things change markedly in the future, such that it affects UK citizens' lives, then more may want to leave. It's not a good reason to leave now.
As a few other people have mentioned it could be done with listing your preferences in order and what out a consensus from there.
Definitely mate a referendum could ironically get us out of the mess the first miss handled referendum got us into.
The country is being held hostage by right wing extremists and disaster capitalists pulling Boris's strings and leading us down a dangerous path. There needs to be some compromise to sort this mess out.
Well yeah thats a good point, not sure what the options would be exactly beyond remain, leave with a deal May's/Another or crash out.
Not everyone's going to be 100% happy but leaving with a deal is at least less damaging and it could possibly satisfy most people.
I don’t think it is a bad argument. It will only become harder to leave as time goes on. If we don’t leave now I’m sure there will quickly be some new treaties signed (which we don’t get a vote on) that make leaving virtually impossible
no it isn't, a vote of no confidence only leads to a GE if no other government (such as a Lab/LD/SNP/IND coalition under Harman or Clarke) can command the confidence of the house within 14 days. The game at the moment is to force Johnson to extend thereby weakening him severely, splitting the Brexit vote more equally between Farage and Johnson and giving a remain alliance a route to a GE majority (I don't think Labour or the Lib Dems can realistically get a majority outright without a cooperation agreement between themselves and the Greens, which they've said they won't do). If it comes to it, i.e. Johnson somehow manages to get around the Benn Act, this will happen to stop a no deal on the 31st.
Is there anyway to end up with better than we have now? Even cancelling brexit just maintains the status quo.
And there’s the rub Stevoc. EVERYBODY needs to realise NOBODY is going to get exactly what they want. It is called compromise and where the Anti Brexit brigade and the ERG fanatics are both going badly wrong.
But, and don’t throw rotten tomatoes at me here, I have to negotiate some pretty hard nosed people in my work and on this point I actually agree with Boris. The ‘Surrender bill’ as he combatively puts it has / will severely hamper our efforts to actually get a deal.
Both the UK and the EU know leaving with a deal is better ... for both sides.
However the EU would rather we not leave and can currently sit back and watch us tear ourselves apart and if we’ve now got legislation that stops no deal then they can play a high stakes game, almost rolling the dice that a) we get another extension and spend more time tearing ourselves apart and then eventually stay in or b) stay in completely. It’s a win / win for them.
Taking no deal off the table completely hamstrings negotiations. I know a lot of you won’t agree with that because it is Boris’s stance but the reality is I would never even think about entering into a negotiation knowing the other party knows I have to take what they offer. It’s ridiculous. I have to be able to walk away and take my business elsewhere to ensure I have a chance of getting the best deal possible. That’s not politics, it’s business.
And my thoughts are, even if we did leave without a deal, the chaos could be so bad for BOTH sides with the amount of trade we do that a deal would appear very, very quickly.
I just have to post this
feck me, utter turbomongs like this are a valid reason for iq testing before being allowed to vote!
But it's both sides, yeah.
Some good tory parroting there.
This isn't a business deal and we're not haggling. If the remaining issue was the amount of the divorce bill you'd maybe have a point.
The EU are laying out what they need to maintain the single market and the GFA. These are not negotiating points they are fundamentals that have to be upheld.
If we follow your point the only situation where they could do as you say is to turn down a reasonable alternative arrangement, given they've not received one yet do you actually think the Benn bill is preventing a deal? Really?
In the last few days we've had the prime ministers sister say Boris may be being influenced by big money, his adviser saying do as we say if you don't want death threats, a Tory MP say they'll abolish the supreme court because they don't like it's judgement and now Farage at a rally saying they're coming after the pen pushers at whitehall.
The descent towards the breakdown of this country continues.
The descent towards the breakdown of this country continues.
Reducing the people working on a deal and not really putting any effort in will have a more damaging effect. Boris doesn't want a deal.
This might be fine if Johnson was in earnest working on actually getting a deal. Yet all the signs are that he isn't beyond fig leaf gestures. Which rather undermines the argument that taking no deal off the table will hamstring those negotiations.
Also, part of negotiating is ensuring that you are aiming tor a realistic, plausible outcome. The UK are demanding the backstop be removed with no alternative being put in its place. Even if these attempts at negotiating were genuine (which they don't appear to be) they would have no chance of being succesful regardless.
I wont take that as a complement Smores
This is absolutely a business deal, sorry Smores, I don't agree.
And I agree with that, fair enough and I have already stated that I think the best possible outcome is to leave and stay in a customs union, that is the way both parties get (almost) what they want. It is the best compromise, and not Tory Parroting. Just because I agree with some Tory sentiments does not make me a Tory.
Yes I do potentially Smores but that is not to say that isn't a huge failing of successive PM's that a viable alternative hasn't been offered. This take sme back to an earlier post of mine, both sides need to calm the heck down and curb their language and work towards a viable agreement.
I cant help but feel that given how things are going that we might end up with Mays deal presented back to the house with the cross party additions that were agreed (possibly with the backstop called something else but essentially unchanged) and although 30 or so ERG types might reject it that there might be enough opposition MP's to get it over the line to essentially avoid disruption / riots / civil war
Followed by a confidence motion and an immediate election (where the conservatives stand on WTO at the end of the transition period, the liberals stand on rejoining and labour pretend brexit is finished and we have another 2 years of constant political fighting through the transition phase about what we are transitioning to)
Followed by a confidence motion and an immediate election (where the conservatives stand on WTO at the end of the transition period, the liberals stand on rejoining and labour pretend brexit is finished and we have another 2 years of constant political fighting through the transition phase about what we are transitioning to)
Yes and it's worrying. Both sides of the house mirror society, everyone (left and right) has withdrawn to such extreme sides of their own narative that the gaping hole in the middle is like a wasteland. Who is actually trying to sort this out? Not the Tories, Nor Labour, Nor the Lib Dems or the SNP.
Is the HoC reflecting society or is society reflecting the HoC?
I don't think you're far off the mark here Sun_Tzu. My worry is the ERG and the Lib Dems aren't actually helping much with their positions, only dividing further.
Johnson and his 'combative' language (a very tame way to describe his dangerous divide and rule rhetoric) is not contributing to a compromise. Swinsons revoke A50 is also not.
Yet Labour's compromise of a second referendum and waiting to decide which way to campaign gets criticised as sitting on the fence. Do you support that compromise?
Last edited:
There is absolutely no evidence to support this assumption - only a British citizen believing that because their politicians are consistently sneaky and underhanded, then so to will be the politicians of the other EU members.
As for this argument about the Benn Act scuttling any chance of negotiations, you are refusing to accept what is and had always been clear. While Britain may be playing chicken with the EU, the EU are not and have been honest and explicit in what they will and won't accept.
The EU would obviously prefer Britain doesn't leave or that it leaves with a deal, but not to the extent that they will compromise on any of the four pillars or on the border in Ireland. Their obligation to the remaining members outweighs any obligation to Britain - there isn't some secret backdown the EU are keeping until the last moment because a no deal brexit while damaging, is less damaging to the Union than capitulating to the demands of a departing bully.
Theresa May didn't negotiate a bad deal, she negotiated the best deal possible from a shaky position. Johnson nor nobody else is going to negotiate a better one. May at least had the benefit of negotiating from a position of some small integrity - the actions of Boris, Cummings, Mogg and co. over the last few weeks and months have served only to weaken the negotiating position, not strengthen it.
Any argument that Britain can be trusted to work on future solutions for say, the border issue, is now laughable. The image of a trustworthy Britain who will thrive in negotiating trade deals after a no deal brexit disappeared when Boris attempted and failed his parliamentary coup.
I've seen talk of seeing an ounce of compromise from Remainers but where is this compromise on the Leavers side?
From the beginning of this process, all I have seen from Leavers is "what we need", "what we deserve", "what's not fair on us". What about Britain's obligations and responsibilities? Your history of foreign policy means you have obligations outside your own shores - the history of British occupation of Ireland means you cannot just ignore your responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the actions of your politicians over the last 5 years means vague and vapid promises of a future solution cannot reasonably be trusted.
You are all afraid of a backstop which will hold you into obligations that you yourselves signed up to, but give not two shits about the turmoil and instability your actions will result in for a region that your country is responsible for destabilising in the first place.
Last edited:
Will be interesting now if parties start shifting to a VonC. I just don't see where Corbyn gets the support of the House from if this is the route they go down. Swinson has already said she won't support it and many of the now independent former Tory MPs have said they wouldn't support putting Corbyn into No. 10.
Labour + SNP = 282 seats.
You don't think Boris is the ERG's puppet / mouthpiece right now? One and the same.
Edit: Combative is the word I'd use, yes.
True. You got in before my significant edit. I shouldn't try to discuss while working. Multi tasking is obviously not my forte.
The EU is not a business it may represent some but they are not negotiating in that capacity. I deal with the FCA a fair bit or other regulatory bodies and we end up comparable situation, we work with the regulators to form our position and we come up with solutions or end up in an unfavourable situation. Oddly my company does not wait until the last moment and threaten to break the law unless they give us a deal. Not every negotiation is some hard nosed board room stand off.
Care to give me a simple scenario of how the Benn act has in any way has prevented a deal? Something concrete, what could the EU have done that they may not have done because the legislation
Swinson said she backed a referendum on leaving the EU, she then said she backed a second referendum, she now wants to revoke the initial referendum she supported, reneging on her promise of a second referendum. She campaigned on a manifesto that supported scrapping tuition fees. She voted to treble them. I wouldn't rely on anything she says.
Has anyone got anything concrete here Smores? On the face of it, I believe that the Benn Bill makes it easier for the EU to hold their position on the current withdrawal agreement and insist nothing can be changed.
And this is why I find myself politically homeless right now. Boris? Jeremy? Jo? Serisouly? They're our 3 options?
No but the rest of us can't think of anyway this theory works. I've yet to hear any actual substance to it beyond fluffy concepts. If it's a valid concept it shouldn't be that hard to arrive at examples.
From your answer it seems like you believe the EU might drop the backstop from the withdrawal agreement if they're scared of no deal?
No, I don't believe for one second they'll drop the backstop but I believe Boris, if he wants a deal (there's nothing to suggest he does though), should be working flat out to find a workable alternative.
On this I agree with the EU, we voted to leave, we sort it out.
Well said.
State of Michael Gove in these clips...
Fair play that’s the worlds biggest strawman. Where have I said anything about no dealers not needing to compromise or anything of that ilk? What have I said about the Benn act? I have mentioned Benn once and it was to say Johnson was being a nob calling it the surrender act.
To clarify, we should’ve voted for the WA when we had the chance. Did you mean to add quotes from about 6 other posters because I don’t really disagree with anything you have said.
Why is he even allowed to be in there in that state?The backstop will have to be there as it is essentially a mechanism to carry over the International treaty of the Good Friday agreement. Most English people seem to be forgetting this isn't some little backroom deal sorted out between the DUP and Sinn Feinn that we can turn our back on. It's an international treaty that ended a war that was signed by the British and Irish governments but also further ratified by the EU, America and the United nations.
The ONLY latitude within the backstop is where you apply the necessary customs and safety checks. Given they CAN'T be between Northern Ireland and the Republic then they either exist in the Irish Sea (something the DUP is dead against) or the UK is tied to remain in a full customs and trade agreement with the EU, meaning we would not be able to make further trade agreements without EU agreement.
This isn't a game of Chicken - we are not in direct head on collision with the EU. They have 27 other nations with which to trade internally and the whole "no deal threat" scenario is based on the arrogant idea that keeping the UK sweet is worth more to the EU than keeping Ireland happy. The flaw in this argument is that the EU would disintegrate if it was seen to favour the UK over one of it's smaller member states. It also doesn't want to be seen as an organisation that flouts international treaties.
Brexiteers and the ERG seem to not realise that the UK already has a horrendous reputation historically as treaty breakers, second only to the Americans as riding roughshod over international law. They seem to think that we can get away with this sort of behaviour once again and fantasise of becoming a bold Buccaneering Nation once again!
The reality was however we developed an empire by monetising a venal slave trade, commited acts of piracy and theft and created counter insurgencies to destabilise other countries and then dominate and control them through acts of brutality, negligence and cruelty. The brexiteers need to realise that the English are despised in many countries and won't be trusted.
The shenanigans that Boris is trying is not skilled negotiation...it's just the same old bull the English have tried before and it is not going to fly in the modern world.
Pretty much agree with this. However I don't think the Tories will want WTO. Canada ++ will be what we get. I also don't feel that getting to a FTA like that will be as protracted as many people think. Unlike Canada the UK has been a member of the block for 45 years, it shouldn't be too much of an ask to align regulations and agree customs arrangements.
Whatever is agreed in the WA for NI will probably remain in place but will be reformed over time to better fit with the FTA.
I think that is how it will be politically and economically but to the person in the street I don't reckon that it will feel all that different.
If we can get there then maybe there will be something to build on.
I am resigned to leaving now. Softer the better. But arguing against it is starting to look ridiculous.
Oh i forgot in my list of road to naziville stories that the government are also advertising pro-brexit propoganda in our schools. Yay
Im minded to agree with all bit the bolded part...
i work with governments and what we do is often aligned with trade deals (and financing huge infra schemes for governments)... I know a lot of the people who are likley to be asked to work on a deal from the UK side and they all tell me the same thing
Typically trade deals are complex but collaberative - i.e. you are seeking to align regulations and remove barriers to promote more trade and economic benefits.
this will from a technical point of view in theory be easier in that regualations are aligned and there are no barriers... but politically this brings major problems in that almost certainly there will be areas that one side seeks to protect (financial services, or fishing rights for example) and the trade off will be that the other side feels compelled to also put up some protection... and this can escalate very quickly into tit for tat tarifs and barriers and suddenly the atmosphere becomes very confrontational
If this starts in an environment without a W.A. and there are outstanding issues over finances and ireland etc they all tell me that its going to be an extremely slow process (and even with a W.A. they tell me that a good deal for both parties will be almost if not actually impossible to negotiate in the W.A. timeframe)
Im sure if we take a bad enough deal something can be done and if the economics of WTO are harmful we might have to... equally if a combo of brexit / conservatives win I could even see them prioratising a deal with the USA before they even start an EU negotiation - a stupid decision I feel economically but politically justifiable in terms of striking new deals around the world etc.
Yeah apologies, I misread @Volumiza 's post as being yours. I've edited my original post to show that.