Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
As well as Richard Harrington, the Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt and the health minister Steve Brine have also resigned because they voted for the Letwin amendment, government sources have confirmed.
 
The talk of a General Election, but the problem is will that just turn into another Brexit vote, which in turns gives us another hung parliament, and then risk going around circles again and again
 
sun_tzu said:
Will depend how the votes go... Gut feel nothing gets a majority and we basically have Thursday to come up with a plan ... Farcical really
Click to expand...

At that point they surely go for a single transferable vote process, to narrow down the options.

Of course, there's no guarantee that whatever Parliament comes back with will be accepted by either the government or the EU, but it has to be worth a try. Otherwise, everyone is just left banging their heads against the wall with May's failed deal until we inevitably crash out on 'no deal' by default.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
For what it's worth.

The Danelaw had fallen to Athelstan king of the Anglo Saxon's of Wessex and Mercia at the time. Which is the point of citing it as the first time England as an entity existed.

Following the failed attempt to defeat him at the battle of Brunanburh he ruled as king of the English from 927 until he died in 939.
Click to expand...

You're talking about actual Danish occupation. The Danelaw refers to the bit of the country which had (as it would suggest) a different law code (although there is a great deal of dispute how different it looked). Those terms continue to be of relevance through to the late eleventh century (for example, Yorkshire Domesday has 'wapentakes' where as the south has Hundreds). I probably could have said Danelaw counties if I wasn't being lazy though.
 
What is the vote taking place now all about? The Govt's amended one
 
It's a logical first step, shouldn't be a huge victory but it feels like it given May has blocked progress at every turn
 
Smores said:
It's a logical first step, shouldn't be a huge victory but it feels like it given May has blocked progress at every turn
Click to expand...
At the stage we should have been at months ago. Better late than never...
 
Smores said:
It's a logical first step, shouldn't be a huge victory but it feels like it given May has blocked progress at every turn
Click to expand...
First step is correct. If there's not some sort of selective procedure it will just be a massive time-waster as nothing gets passed anyway, or if it does it will be bills that conflict with each other, or unicorn stuff that the EU won't entertain in the first place.
 
Maticmaker said:
My point was that because of the restraints on the EU via its own treaty's etc. it could not come to the table and negotiate a WA, and a future trade deal at the same time. Hence it was pointless the UK Government getting embroiled in the WA only, because that was the only indeterminate element that gave the Government leverage in the A50 process itself and on negotiating trade issues.

Hence the only way the Government could have respected the Referendum result was to go for the 'no deal' option, from day one, but instead it tried to pitch its approach somewhere in the middle, stating "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" which was patently untrue and which led to all sorts of complications, the border issue in Ireland being just one. If you are truly going to negotiate there should be no pre-conditions, from either side otherwise its not a negotiation. If you ignore this maxim, you will lose, and that is what has happened to the Government, its options are now limited it can either go for a 'No deal' for which it would seem the EU is more prepared for than us, or it can choke on revoking A50 and accept the political consequences... which in the longer term, the effects are likely to be more serious than a 'No Deal'.
Click to expand...

Mate none of that is actually an answer to the question i posed.

What i'm getting at which you might have caught on to, which is probably why you are avoiding answering the question, is that the UK could never have opted for No Deal from day 1.

How could the British government have came out and said they were not going to even bother to seek any sort of agreement with the EU for a transition period to maintain the status quo and preserve the GFA until they get a permanent solution in place. Just parachuting out of the EU without a withdrawal agreement would have broken the Good Friday Agreement. Thats lodged with the UN it's international Law.

The UK would have been announcing to the world that they will break international agreements when it suits them (and fecking over Ireland north and south in the process). Right before they seek to negotiate international trade deals, not a clever course of action wouldn't you agree?

Surely you must realize by this stage what you have been suggesting was never an option. And please don't come off with the ''no one wants a border'' nonsense mate. Anyone with a basic understanding of the situation knows that doesn't translate to reality. Without a deal a border will go up it has to and then goodbye GFA and probably peace in Ireland with it. It's that simple.
 
They can try and cry revolution but MPs having some control of the agenda and putting forward their ideas is what 95% of the country assume they do. That's very clear and why May always pushed the unhelpful parlaiment line.
 
Now let's get some legislation through for the European elections :drool:
 
Interesting that Bridgen of the ERG in his sky news interview just now calles for May to stand down and a GE to get Brexit through.

They're switching tactics and we'll soon hear them demand it be put to the people
 
Ubik said:
Now let's get some legislation through for the European elections :drool:
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, it'd be genuinely intriguing to see what happens. Generally the Eurosceptics always benefited from caring more about them than anyone, but the PV mob would probably be right up for it this time. Plus UKIP have collapsed, so even if they improve slightly on their current fortunes it's hard to see them doing anything spectacular, meaning they'll almost certainly lose seats. Fun times ahead eh.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The indicative votes will be interesting if only in the fact that one can see which MP voted for what.
Click to expand...
Worst of all situations. They should of voted her deal through. Now there’ll be a series of options that, if made policy, will be absolutely pointless and will almost certainly cause uproar.

In terms of minimising civil unrest May’s deal is probably as good as it gets. Plus the only option that had any economic appeal in that deal was the prospect of an independent trade policy. Not much chance of that now.
 
Honest John said:
Worst of all situations. They should of voted her deal through. Now there’ll be a series of options that, if made policy, will be absolutely pointless and will almost certainly cause uproar.

In terms of minimising civil unrest May’s deal is probably as good as it gets. Plus the only option that had any economic appeal in that deal was the prospect of an independent trade policy. Not much chance of that now.
Click to expand...

Another day of pointless amendments/votes unless they actually cancel it altogether which won't happen.
If the Uk are going to leave they should have voted it through but they all think they are going to get atrade deal sorted out before they leave.
They don't seem to realise that they need a withdrawal agreement to get to the real negotiations afterwards.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Another day of pointless amendments/votes unless they actually cancel it altogether which won't happen.
If the Uk are going to leave they should have voted it through but they all think they are going to get atrade deal sorted out before they leave.
They don't seem to realise that they need a withdrawal agreement to get to the real negotiations afterwards.
Click to expand...
I am seriously starting to believe that very few of this lot actually understand the difference between the WA and the future relationship. When I watch parliament the two are conflated all the time, especially by Corbyn who starts a sentence by saying that May’s deal is a disaster then finishes it by offering a CU/SM as an alternative - which is clearly a trade arrangement.
 
Honest John said:
I am seriously starting to believe that very few of this lot actually understand the difference between the WA and the future relationship. When I watch parliament the two are conflated all the time, especially by Corbyn who starts a sentence by saying that May’s deal is a disaster then finishes it by offering a CU/SM as an alternative - which is clearly a trade arrangement.
Click to expand...

The distinction has been a matter of debate all day and it's been a matter of press coverage all day, you're obviously looking in the wrong places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.