So a significant faction of the Tories believe that Hard Brexit would destroy their party, which poses the question: would anyone accept a Hard Brexit on the proviso that it destroyed the Tory party?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yes but why on earth do we have to wait until mid March gor that? 2 more weeks of uncertainty for what? Just hold the votes tomorrow and move on.
Not me because it would crash the economy.
We're back baby
I think this has always been the case. There are less than 20 Tories that seriously think that dropping out on WTO is a good idea. At the other end of the scale you have a similar number of MP's that outright refuse to accept the result.
Most of the Party would prefer a deal and a closer relationship. IMO May's deal although flawed is the best compromise. Whatever she can get in the next two weeks by way of assurances on the backstop could help. Her statement today will rattle the ERG because if they vote against her then a vote on 'no-deal Brexit' will be put to Parliament. And it would probably take it off the table. The natural consequence of this would be an extension of A50 either to keep banging away at May's deal or to find an alternative WA. The longer it goes on unresolved the closer a 2nd referendum becomes. So the ERG plus any MP's that are minded to respect the result would be sensible to vote for May's deal.
'Get us out with a deal then sort matters afterward'. I think even Ken Clarke is coming round to that view.
Mays response to Jess Phillips was particularly pathetic there.
No deal happens by default.
That assumes Labour will escape the consequences. Majority of the Tory membership are fine with no deal.
So with this extension, it will still be May trying to renegotiate the same deal she agreed with the EU in December?
Really is just her trying to force her deal down MPs throats whether they like it or not and hope they will oblige eventually.
Really is just her trying to force her deal down MPs throats whether they like it or not and hope they will oblige eventually.
“Faulty Commons” with John Cleese as Jezza
DUP presser at 4pm
*edit* - not normally good news if they call one
*edit* - not normally good news if they call one
The EU should simply tell the UK that there will be no extension after the 29th of March and that they either accept the deal on the table or go out with no deal and all that, that entails.
What I'd be doing if I were the EU as well. We are a fecking mess.
Cancelled it (or false news).
We’re all safe from Snarlene and Fathead for a while.
Labour should use any possible extension to fight/argue like hell for a SM/CU solution.
This is the only thing that makes sense and we all know it .
This is the only thing that makes sense and we all know it .
I cant believe she is being allowed to get away with this.
I’m sure the EU are hoping someone sees sense and calls the whole thing off. They’ve made it clear they’re open to that option from day one.
I agree - anything that delays Brexit (or increases the chance of it not happening) is probably very acceptable to the EU. Of course, it's been an expensive exercise so far for the other European countries, which must be irritating, to say the least.
Yes, but it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive to them if the EU's second biggest economy drops out with no deal. I believe the EU will happily accept an extension (within reason), they'll just publicly make it look like they're doing it very begrudgingly.
Personally never really understood how the threat of the UK leaving with no deal was any sort of leverage against the EU. No deal is way more damaging to the UK than vice versa.
It never has been - threatening to destroy your own economy is not really a threat.
The Brexit line is always that Sterling is overvalued - if the exrate was £10 to €1 they'd still say it was overvalued.
If Brexit was cancelled the pound would probably go to €1.30+
So let’s say the house vote to take no deal off the table and then the EU refuse an extension. Doesn’t that legally only leave the option of revoking Article 50?
And that is from a Brit living in Germany I have no Idea what I need to do with regards to papers to live and work here as no one knows and being honest what is the point of an extension when the same dross will be on the table. From day one of posting Article 50 all parties should have been working together to sort the best possible deal but no they are more interested in themselves and getting one up on the other one/ each other.
Or accept the withdrawal agreement as it is.
Wait so there's a scenario where May's deal can get voted down. No Deal can get voted down & extending the date can get voted down as well? Surely then the only option is to either go to a people's vote or cancel the whole thing?
All of my money is in Canada at the moment so I'd prefer it to go the other way personally. If it drops to 1.11/1.10 again I might send some back. Transferwise offer pretty good margins for smaller transfers.
Agreed.
She has always quite correctly maintained two things.
We have accepted the will of the people to leave the EU.
We will leave on March 29th.
I cannot see any merit in extending the date as we have had two years to get to where we now are.
I cannot see any merit in a so called peoples vote. It is fraught with danger and confusion. Of the two available options, I am now totally in favour of the agreed WA. Not perfect and not ideal but it is the only sensible option and it gives us a position on which to move forward during the transition without the ridiculously high risk cliff edge scenario.
I don't think Sterling will stay in the current range (1.10-1.20) after a final decision is made.
If it is a no deal it will go the other way , way below 1.10.
Does the common vote on No Deal legally stop it from happening or is it just advisory? If it legally stops no deal then surely Article 50 would be void, if it's an illegal measure to leave without a deal then the UK cannot leave without a deal on March 29. If it's advisory then Article 50 is still in effect which means No Deal is on the table.
I might be misinterpreting the situation so feel free to correct me.
The only way that a new referendum could work would be if lets say 75% was needed for whatever wins and lets say remain wins then the leavers start wanting another referendum, the UK should simply bugger off as all will be well the Blitz spirit, Vera Lynn and the White Cliffs of Dover.
The first one didn't have a quota (but should have) and neither should a second one.
What were you against in the WA that you're now willing to stomach?
If it wants to fall below 1-1 that’s fine, I have to regularly send euros back to the UK.
Other than recanting on Art 50 completely and cancelling Brexit, how can "No Deal" be taken off the table, surely the time frame doesn't allow for it the legislation already passed on this issue, to be undone?
True. I meant that it would be off for the 29th March because once that was the case then they'd have to apply to the EU to have A50 extended. It doesn't remove the prospect of no-deal permanently.
If it wants to fall below 1-1 that’s fine, I have to regularly send euros back to the UK.
I still think it will be no deal in the end, so you should be quids in , as they say.
Have you sorted out your Carte de Séjour or are you applying for french citizenship?
Oh, sorry I thought that by including the specific date in the legislation it meant that on the 29th May at 11.00pm we leave the EU, with or without a deal, unless we withdraw Art 50 altogether.
Simply delaying the outcome of the withdrawal negotiating process triggered by Article 50, did not effect the official withdrawal date, it only pushed back a date for the negotiations to be concluded and as you've said it doesn't remove the prospect of a no deal permanently.
I thought that's what all the fuss about crashing out was all about and why there was a move to take out the date from the specific legislation?
So, you think you have it all figured out, then you realise you don't... guess I'm not on my own in that!