Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Slightly random question: it seems that any form of Brexit will be worse for the UK than staying in the EU, so why do Norway elect to stay out of the EU themselves? What do they gain from doing so?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
See the two amendments for Customs Union and Boles 2.0 want the WA changed.

Well that's the end of that. The EU says read my lips.
Click to expand...

Does that also apply if we do a long extension? I don't see why they wouldn't as it's a change of red lines really. Seems a very small technicality

Although i don't understand their obsession with the WA. Tusk has indicated they'll make the political declaration binding if required
 
sullydnl said:
Slightly random question: it seems that any form of Brexit will be worse for the UK than staying in the EU, so why do Norway elect to stay out of the EU themselves? What do they gain from doing so?
Click to expand...
They really want to, but their people dgaf. If I recall correctly. Which is fair enough, why change what ain't broke?
 
Smores said:
Does that also apply if we do a long extension? I don't see why they wouldn't as it's a change of red lines really. Seems a very small technicality
Click to expand...

For the Custom's Union it's really a small change, could be done overnight just adding it to the political declaration and doesn't solve anything really.

The 2.0 requires EFTA accepting the UK before anything else and maybe would involve a long extension but it's a negotiation on the future relationship like any other proposal bearing in mind that the withdrawal agreement is just so the UK can withdraw, but it's not a certain outcome and looks to be only a temporary demand rather than a permanent one.

Edit: In fact it sounds like an extension to the transition period.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
Slightly random question: it seems that any form of Brexit will be worse for the UK than staying in the EU, so why do Norway elect to stay out of the EU themselves? What do they gain from doing so?
Click to expand...

Being in the Single Market comes with a lot of attachments but also a lot of freedoms, when compared to being in the EU proper. They don’t have to take any laws or regulations that don’t relate to the running of the single market. For example out of ~23k EU laws, only ~5k are mandatory and had to be accepted by the EEA members for purposes of market harmonisation.

If it strikes a balance between how much perceived sovereignty people are willing to surrender to Brussels and what is for the economic benefit of the country, then it works. Obviously problem in the UK is we had decades of media and right wing politicians portraying the EU as some sort of dictatorship and brainwashed people on that. With many now believing that giving any sort of legislative control to Brussels is akin to surrender and treason.
 
I feel like it's gone past the media that May has yet again called a meeting of Tories during the hours of the indicative vote debate. She's essentially called two mass walkouts whilst also claiming to be listening
 
sullydnl said:
Slightly random question: it seems that any form of Brexit will be worse for the UK than staying in the EU, so why do Norway elect to stay out of the EU themselves? What do they gain from doing so?
Click to expand...

They are not in it because they don't need to, they have enough strategic resources to take care of their small population and from what I have read philosophically they like being a big fish in a small pond. It's understandable and totally fair.
 
Quite a few Tories in the house saying they'll back CU and CM 2.0.

Im hopeful we'll see one or both pass and i hope confirmatory vote too but i think less likely.
 
Smores said:
I feel like it's gone past the media that May has yet again called a meeting of Tories during the hours of the indicative vote debate. She's essentially called two mass walkouts whilst also claiming to be listening
Click to expand...

The only thing she's listening to is the sound of her own farts. She's an odious twat
 
JPRouve said:
They are not in it because they don't need to, they have enough strategic resources to take care of their small population and from what I have read philosophically they like being a big fish in a small pond. It's understandable and totally fair.
Click to expand...

Presumably not too keen on a big whale entering the pond either.
 
Anyone keeping track of which motions the opposition parties are supporting?

So far I make it
Customs Union - Labour support, Lib Dems ?, SNP against, TIG against
Common Market 2 - Labour Support, Lib Dem free vote, SNP support, TIG against
Referendum - Labour support (with likely many rebellions), Lib Dem support, SNP support, TIG support
Parliamentary control - Labour against, SNP support, assuming the other two do as well
 
Last edited:
With their abstentions in the previous round and no in this round, the SNP is as responsible for a hard Brexit as anyone else.
 
MadMike said:
Hence "selfish idiots". How exactly does that work when the diminishing youth is either unemployed or earning basic income? A lot of that youth are net recipients of unemployment or assistance benefits.

Moving to North Europe, both temporarily alleviates the unemployment issue and sees many of them return back with money to invest in 20-30 years time.

How are the unemployed going to create growth when there's 0 investment coming from anywhere, 0 liquidity in the banks and the taxation and NI contribution systems are extremely punishing? From where?
Click to expand...
Isnt this what fom is all about? Sending the unemployed from crap countries to find work in the north / west of europe. Solves nothing back home but does allow a person to support their families from distance. Si wrong i hate it.
 
Stanley Road said:
Isnt this what fom is all about? Sending the unemployed from crap countries to find work in the north / west of europe. Solves nothing back home but does allow a person to support their families from distance. Si wrong i hate it.
Click to expand...

How could emigration alone solve terrible financial policies, corruption, populism and an ageing population? It can only alleviate some of the effects of the aforementioned problems. Which it does. Ergo it has a positive effect for those countries.

At the same time, low-unemployment countries of North Europe have benefited considerably from the European immigration. That is mostly people who come, work and return home to retire. Therefore spending their productive years in countries that actually need them. See the reports of the Migration Observatory for the proven tangible benefits of EU worker migration to the UK.

So, what is wrong about it and why do you hate it?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Yes. Having read it again it sounds almost like the current WA with an indefinite transition period until they can think of something better with the added complication of getting EFTA members to agree.
Click to expand...

That's why I initially called it a disguised extension, they say that they will accept the WA and that by December 2020 they should be members of EFTA and a CU with the EU which would dissolve the backstop.
 
Last edited:
Parliament sounds nice and compromising today, although most of the Tory party being missing is probably responsible.
 
JPRouve said:
That's why I initially called it a disguised extension, they say that they will accept the WA and that by 2020 they should be members of EFTA and a CU with the EU which would dissolve the backstop.
Click to expand...

Sounds like remaining in the EU would be a better idea and they could have a vote and don't need Norway's permission.
 
Stanley Road said:
Isnt this what fom is all about? Sending the unemployed from crap countries to find work in the north / west of europe. Solves nothing back home but does allow a person to support their families from distance. Si wrong i hate it.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, and the baltic states along with Poland are the prime examples of how open borders can have a significant positive spillover effect on the home economy in multiple ways.
 
I don't understand the question of common market 2.0 because that would mean we just voted to have our lip zipped, we will have no voice and no veto on EU matters regardless of free movement and common market, etc. Can't we just revoke article 50 and just remain in the EU.
 
deafepl said:
I don't understand the question of common market 2.0 because that would mean we just voted to have our lip zipped, we will have no voice and no veto on EU matters regardless of free movement and common market, etc. Can't we just revoke article 50 and just remain in the EU.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the preferred choice from EU perspective, less ultra right wingers in the parliament that have no intention on improving the current apparatus and are just there to oppose and disturb.
 
Kentonio said:
Huh? I thought May gave them a free vote and only the main cabinet were required to abstain?
Click to expand...

You're right, my bad.

The cabinet ministers are 22, including the PM. So if one of the proposals is going to make a compelling case then the Yays need to outnumber the Nays by at least that much I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.