Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Adebesi said:
Absolutely. Especially given Labour are absolutely terrible at pushing back against these kinds of narratives. As evidenced by the whole financial crisis, "the mess Labour left us in" thing. The bulk of the deficit was not down to Labour profligacy, it was down to saving banks. The Tories supported saving the banks and pretty much matched Labour spending plans in the period leading up to the financial crisis. But I cannot remember this argument ever really being made by Labour, they just accepted the narrative and expressed remorse.
Click to expand...

Without taking this too far off topic, the requirement to save the banks was largely down to Labour stripping away regulation in the 2000s so the banking sector could fund their spending plans. Many of the complex asset classes that led to the recession didn't really exist before then. So it does still ring true, 'the mess Labour left us in'. It was better for them to bury their heads and accept it as is rather than open a new can of worms.
 
So in essence, if the MPs vote to take no deal off the table today (which I'm assuming they will) and EU refuses to extend the Brexit deadline of 29 March, does that mean the only way for UK to avoid a no deal Brexit would be to revoke Article 50 completely? And does that mean there will be another referendum or will Brexit be postponed pending to more shenanigans?
 
I know it doesn't matter at all, but I fully support this:
Paul the Wolf said:
European parliament's lead Brexit spokesman said he would oppose even 24-hour article 50 extension unless UK says what it wants
This is what Guy Verhofstadt said in the European parliament about extending article 50.

I don’t want a long extension. I say that very openly. An extension, where we go beyond the European elections, and the European elections will be hijacked by the Brexiters, and by the whole Brexit issues. We will talk only about that, and not about the real problems, and the real reforms we need in the European Union.

The only thing we will do, we will give a new mandate to Mr Farage. That’s exactly wants. Why he wants that? For two reasons. First of all, he can continue to have a salary that he can transfer to his offshore company. And the second thing is that he can continue to do his dirty work in the European Union, that is to try to destroy the European Union from within ...

What we need is now certainty from the House of Commons ... And so I am against every extension, whether an extension of one day, one week, even 24 hours, if it is not based on a clear opinion of the House of Commons for something, that we know what they want.
Click to expand...

Nothing to lose for EU politicians by saying it as it is.
 
Honest John said:
Question. Is leaving without a deal a breach of the GFA?
Click to expand...

Kentonio said:
Yup.
Click to expand...

Honest John said:
So in a sense no deal is legally not an option for the UK?
Click to expand...

Leaving without a deal does not automatically breach the GFA, because we would not necessarily be compelled to set up border controls in N. Ireland under WTO.

However, it would put us in a very difficult situation. WTO non-discrimination rules, particularly "most favoured nation" treatment, specifically prohibit you from treating your different trading partners unequally. This means that if we want frictionless trade and no border checks for goods coming into the UK from Ireland, we have to allow the same dispensation for goods from China, Argentina, the USA etc etc.

In other words, a total free-for-all.
 
Last edited:
If it wasn't for their clear ignorance and incompetence it would be incredible that those tories are still pushing for this malthouse bollocks. They don't have a notion.
 
Kentonio said:
Oh yeah its perfectly possible, I just don't see why the EU would agree to play along. The longer it drags on, the worse the effect on the rest of the 27, so there has to be a point (and we may be at that point right now) where they just say feck it and walk away.
Click to expand...
Because what you'd wind up with is the WA without the backstop. I think the money and citizens rights are moot (nobody was going to seriously argue those.) The WA is all about the Irish situation. UK remaining in the CU get's over that but to some extent leaves May with control on FOM which is her biggest issue IMO.

From an EU point of view it would be win-win. The Irish are not fecked over. The UK still pays. The UK are a rule-taker with no say in anything. Happy days.

If the UK staying in the CU was a definite possibility the EU would grant the extension.

So if that turns out to be the majority view in the Commons it would almost certainly require a ratifying peoples vote on the basis of:- stay in the CU (because that is all the house will vote for) or Remain.
 
11101 said:
Without taking this too far off topic, the requirement to save the banks was largely down to Labour stripping away regulation in the 2000s so the banking sector could fund their spending plans. Many of the complex asset classes that led to the recession didn't really exist before then. So it does still ring true, 'the mess Labour left us in'. It was better for them to bury their heads and accept it as is rather than open a new can of worms.
Click to expand...
I must have missed all the warnings from Tories about how dangerous deregulating the banks was, and proposals for reinstating those regulations.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
European parliament's lead Brexit spokesman said he would oppose even 24-hour article 50 extension unless UK says what it wants
This is what Guy Verhofstadt said in the European parliament about extending article 50.

I don’t want a long extension. I say that very openly. An extension, where we go beyond the European elections, and the European elections will be hijacked by the Brexiters, and by the whole Brexit issues. We will talk only about that, and not about the real problems, and the real reforms we need in the European Union.

The only thing we will do, we will give a new mandate to Mr Farage. That’s exactly wants. Why he wants that? For two reasons. First of all, he can continue to have a salary that he can transfer to his offshore company. And the second thing is that he can continue to do his dirty work in the European Union, that is to try to destroy the European Union from within ...

What we need is now certainty from the House of Commons ... And so I am against every extension, whether an extension of one day, one week, even 24 hours, if it is not based on a clear opinion of the House of Commons for something, that we know what they want.
Click to expand...
Can anyone blame them?
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Yep. A second referendum is not happening.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

So 2nd ref versus geronwivit, this is where we are?

I suspect the "don't know" and the "please delay" continent are more likely to want a referendum than no deal? But I'm guessing...

More people need to start calling for a 2nd ref instead of poopooing it... I believe there's enough people for it but there are so much bullshit reasons being put up to discount. Reasons where if you dig a little or employ some critical thinking they turn out to be hollow soundbites or propaganda...
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
Logically yes...
Politically I wouldn't be surprised to see may roll the dice on a general election though if she is forced to ask for an extension anywsy

That said another ge could well end up with a hung parliament and the need to co-operate anyway?
Click to expand...
Yes, somehow MPs need to take control away from the government. Not sure how that would work mechanically...
 
Paul the Wolf said:
European parliament's lead Brexit spokesman said he would oppose even 24-hour article 50 extension unless UK says what it wants
This is what Guy Verhofstadt said in the European parliament about extending article 50.

I don’t want a long extension. I say that very openly. An extension, where we go beyond the European elections, and the European elections will be hijacked by the Brexiters, and by the whole Brexit issues. We will talk only about that, and not about the real problems, and the real reforms we need in the European Union.

The only thing we will do, we will give a new mandate to Mr Farage. That’s exactly wants. Why he wants that? For two reasons. First of all, he can continue to have a salary that he can transfer to his offshore company. And the second thing is that he can continue to do his dirty work in the European Union, that is to try to destroy the European Union from within ...

What we need is now certainty from the House of Commons ... And so I am against every extension, whether an extension of one day, one week, even 24 hours, if it is not based on a clear opinion of the House of Commons for something, that we know what they want.
Click to expand...
As expected.

I don't think we've seen the last vote on May's deal.
 
If there was a second referendum, would it have to be a binary choice between leaving with no deal or staying? It seems ridiculous to resurrect May's deal as an option on the ballot paper when MPs have already judged it to be not fit for purpose, but I can imagine MPs preferring that option to offering no deal, out of fear of that option winning.

I still see a lot of talk about a People's Vote, but far less debate about what it would actually entail. Although that might be because Im not looking in the right places.
 
Adebesi said:
I must have missed all the warnings from Tories about how dangerous deregulating the banks was, and proposals for reinstating those regulations.
Click to expand...

They're both as bad as each other. Just pointing out a minor technicality, most don't realise how big a role government played in the recession.
 
JPRouve said:
I don't really know where the longer delay idea comes from, it seems to be a UK based theory because currently the position in the EU is no extension at all. A poster mentioned a podcast where the idea was used but it was an hypothetical based on the consequence to UK internal politics not an actual wish of EU member states.
Click to expand...
Think I originally saw it here (from Guardian 19.02.24 but there was a longer piece from EU perspective in Handelsblatt here in Germany:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...could-be-delayed-until-2021-eu-sources-reveal
 
I bet if it was a cancel Brexit option (without necessarily needing to hold a second referendum) it would gain a lot more support.

I think some are so fatigued by the process they just don’t want anything more to do with it and thus no deal appeals more than a second referendum.
 
Even brexiteers have stopped pretending there any good outcomes from brexit. I just wish it wasn't us carrying out this train wreck and it was another European country.
That David Davis voted for the deal shows you how much of a farce brexit has become.
 
When they voted for Brexit, they did NOT vote for any deal. Period. So it's that simple. It's easy to lie and say people didn't know what they were voting for. They did. The only people who act or say they're tired are those trying to swing the vote. No deal. If the people in charge are unable to handle it, they're in the wrong job period. As it is, it's a joke that someone who didn't want it in the first place does the negotiations. It's a complete joke.
 
Striker10 said:
When they voted for Brexit, they did NOT vote for any deal. Period. So it's that simple. It's easy to lie and say people didn't know what they were voting for. They did. The only people who act or say they're tired are those trying to swing the vote. No deal. If the people in charge are unable to handle it, they're in the wrong job period.
Click to expand...
What a load of shite. People had no idea what they were voting for. That's become blatantly obvious since the referendum happened. The fact that they're trying to get a deal shows how little they knew about the repercussions at the time.
 
Massive Spanner said:
What a load of shite. People had no idea what they were voting for. That's become blatantly obvious since the referendum happened. The fact that they're trying to get a deal shows how little they knew about the repercussions at the time.
Click to expand...

You speaking on behalf of how many people?...How many people that voted for it, have you actively spoken too (not on the internet chartrooms). For starters nations need to be able to create money. So it isn't great to begin with because we're under the thumb of the bankers anyway which means society is being constructed without your input. But let's say what your saying is true. What does that say about the level of society that is being created around you? That most people have next to zero survival skills. Is that progress?
 
Striker10 said:
When they voted for Brexit, they did NOT vote for any deal. Period. So it's that simple. It's easy to lie and say people didn't know what they were voting for. They did. The only people who act or say they're tired are those trying to swing the vote. No deal. If the people in charge are unable to handle it, they're in the wrong job period. As it is, it's a joke that someone who didn't want it in the first place does the negotiations. It's a complete joke.
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense. How many people before the referendum were arguing leaving the EU without a deal? All the talk was how they will give us this and that cause they wanted to sell cars. You're post is disingenuous. Don't even know why I am replying.
 
Striker10 said:
When they voted for Brexit, they did NOT vote for any deal. Period. So it's that simple. It's easy to lie and say people didn't know what they were voting for. They did. The only people who act or say they're tired are those trying to swing the vote. No deal. If the people in charge are unable to handle it, they're in the wrong job period. As it is, it's a joke that someone who didn't want it in the first place does the negotiations. It's a complete joke.
Click to expand...
Bollocks...
Striker10 said:
You speaking on behalf of how many people?...How many people that voted for it, have you actively spoken too (not on the internet chartrooms)...
Click to expand...
Same question to you....
 
Kentonio said:
If you're the EU, how do you even react to that mess? I can't see beyond an accidental crash out at this point, there's just no consensus in the UK for a clear course of action.
Click to expand...

A cross party group of MPs are apparently now planning to push for a softer Brexit and will instigate a series of indicative votes on the various options in an attempt to find a majority for something (possibly a customs union, an EEA- style deal including single market membership, or a second referendum etc).

They believe there is a “silent majority” for a softer form of Brexit, with up to 50 Conservative MPs prepared to back the idea rather than countenance no deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...y-are-ready-to-push-may-towards-softer-brexit
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Not seen a YouGOV poll that gives those results. Latest one from YouGOV today :

Anthony%20Wells%20No%20Deal%20vs%20Delay-01.png


There are apparently a lot of "badly worded" polls out there:

This is from the weekend's Guardian OpEd:
… That’s why polls have shown, for a year now, an 8-10% lead for remain. The weekend poll from BMG showed that the 2 million young voters who have joined the register since 2016 are overwhelmingly for remain. YouGov’s constituency poll finds only two out of 630 where a majority want their MP to back May’s deal.

Yet you can find plenty of bad polls too, such as ComRes, commissioned by leave campaign Brexit Express. It finds 44% agreeing with the statement: “If the EU refuses to make any more concessions, the UK should leave without a deal.” Kellner calls it “loaded, a disgraceful piece of polling, I’m amazed they only got 44%, considering the question”. Brexit Express didn’t choose to promote less welcome results – such as an 8% lead for remain over leave.

Of course a referendum might be lost – but how much better to leave the EU with people voting for a deal they have seen and agreed to. As MP Yvette Cooper warned, this Brexit deal or any other that emerges will never endure without an extended time for public debate, and finally a general election or referendum – preferably both – that settles it beyond dispute …
Click to expand...
 
Striker10 said:
When they voted for Brexit, they did NOT vote for any deal. Period. So it's that simple. It's easy to lie and say people didn't know what they were voting for. They did. The only people who act or say they're tired are those trying to swing the vote. No deal. If the people in charge are unable to handle it, they're in the wrong job period. As it is, it's a joke that someone who didn't want it in the first place does the negotiations. It's a complete joke.
Click to expand...
Its quite clear that most of the Politicians didnt even know what Brexit meant, given the fantasies they sold. How on earth could Brexit voters know when their politicians didnt?
 
afrocentricity said:
Bollocks...

Same question to you....
Click to expand...

Your argument don't even make sense. Think logically. He's making the claim and I asked him the question. It's up to him to back up what he's saying. I don't have to because I pointed out what's obvious and was smart enough to do it first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.