Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Sweet Square said:
Remain - Things stay as they are now


Remain and Reform - Parliament activlely pushes participation within the EU.


Christ if no deal is on the ballot why not have the option to join the euro on there aswell ?



Again I'm just using these examples to show why no deal shouldn't be on the ballot and why no deal is no more legitimate than these examples. So far the only two option that mean anything are the government deal and remain.
Click to expand...

Because no deal Brexit vs May's Brexit is actually a crucial distinction that requires a definite answer and would perhaps even merit it's own referendum to avoid causing a hard Brexit by default over a stalemate in parliament.
 
Sweet Square said:
Remain - Things stay as they are now


Remain and Reform - Parliament activlely pushes participation within the EU.


I mean Christ if no deal is on the ballot why not have the option to join the euro ?



Again I'm just using these examples to show why no deal shouldn't be on the ballot and why no deal is no more legitimate than these examples.
Click to expand...
Or no more illegitimate.

I doubt no deal would win an STV ballot, but the surest way to garner support for it is to tell people they're not entitled to have an opinion. That would be the best recruiting sergeant the no-dealers could wish for. Let it be on the ballot, and lose.
 
do.ob said:
Because no deal Brexit vs May's Brexit is actually a crucial distinction that requires a definite answer and would perhaps even merit it's own referendum to avoid causing a hard Brexit by default over a stalemate in parliament.
Click to expand...
No deal doesn't mean anything at the moment. It's not even a political stance it's a slogan.

What is the no deal solution to the NL border ? We all know it means a border in the north but no one on the No Deal side has said they'll put a border up. So until these questions are answered and no deal actually has political backing(I think I'm right in saying no party in parliament has no deal as its policy) then it shouldn't be on the ballot.

711 said:
Or no more illegitimate.

I doubt no deal would win an STV ballot, but the surest way to garner support for it is to tell people they're not entitled to have an opinion. That would be the best recruiting sergeant the no-dealers could wish for. Let it be on the ballot, and lose.
Click to expand...
Oh I think this is why it will be included if there is a another refendum but I think it's stupid to do so for the reasons above. At the moment the reason it would be included is because of polling. Which for me clearly isn't a good enough reason.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
No deal doesn't mean anything at the moment. It's not even a political stance it's a slogan.

What is the no deal solution to the NL border ? We all know it means a border in the north but no one on the No Deal side has said they'll put a border up. So until these questions are answered and no deal actually has political backing(I think I'm right in saying no party in parliament has no deal as its policy) then it shouldn't be on the ballot.
Click to expand...

No deal is what is going to happen if nothing else happens - it's not just Ireland, what about Dover ?
 
Sweet Square said:
No deal doesn't mean anything at the moment. It's not even a political stance it's a slogan.

What is the no deal solution to the NL border ? We all know it means a border in the north but no one on the No Deal side has said they'll put a border up. So until these questions are answered and no deal actually has political backing(I think I'm right in saying no party in parliament has no deal as its policy) then it shouldn't be on the ballot.
Click to expand...
If you don't have it on the ballot then support will just grow and it will come back to bite you in the long run. Farage would absolutely love it.
 
@Sweet Square
No deal doesn't need to be a stance, it's the default and at the moment probably the most likely scenario.

Since the initial referendum didn't specify in what fashion Brexit would be carried out a lot if people would call it undemocratic to leave it off of an already impossible second referendum.
 
711 said:
Thanks for that, would you like to explain why remain and reform isn't remain? All governments reform, they pass laws that change things, that's the point of them.

edit: I should add I've no problem with remain and reform being on a ballot paper if it means something to someone, I'm just questioning what it means.
Click to expand...
remain and reform... so suppose the eu says go fek yourselves you chose to stay we are not reforming any of the rules ... do we still remain because of course of=ur government can not unilaterally reform the other 27 merely attempt to get partners on board to do so which may or may not succeed
 
do.ob said:
@Sweet Square
No deal doesn't need to be a stance, it's the default and at the moment probably the most likely scenario.
Click to expand...
No body on the no deal side can even agree what the default is. The NL border being a example.

do.ob said:
Since the initial referendum didn't specify in what fashion Brexit would be carried out a lot if people would call it undemocratic to leave it off of an already impossible second referendum.
Click to expand...
I agree with you lot of peope will think it's undemocratic but it's not. I would also say the fact the last refendum didn't specify is why any fututure refendum should.

Still it's sort of pointless as I can't at the moment see any path to another referendum.
 
Why does anyone believe another referendum is the answer? Surely its a 'rearranging of the decks chairs on the titanic' thing?

What has not changed?
The vote in parliament is not the same as the vote in the populace and is unlikely to change unless there is a GE.
The EU continue to say there will be no renegotiation, or if there is, the answer will be the same on the WA.
The EU rules will not allow any negotiation on trade until the UK has left the EU.

What has changed?
We will soon have a new PM, of which both contenders have stated if nothing changes there will be a unilateral withdrawal from the EU by the UK
The senior figures in the EU have changed and the new grouping seems to be more 'federalist' than the previous group, and who might therefore see the UK's departure as a 'good thing' because it will aid their march towards a United States of Europe.

What might result from these new conditions in leadership both in the UK and in the EU?
The UK government seems to have (somewhat subtly) dropped the "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" mantra.
The new EU leadership may well want there to be no revocation of A50, so ensuring there is no likelihood of the UK remaining as an ongoing obstacle to a USE and this may play to Boris's idea to move the Backstop issue into the second part of overall deal, in order to break the 'no deal' log-jam.
 
Maticmaker said:
Why does anyone believe another referendum is the answer? Surely its a 'rearranging of the decks chairs on the titanic' thing?

What has not changed?
The vote in parliament is not the same as the vote in the populace and is unlikely to change unless there is a GE.
The EU continue to say there will be no renegotiation, or if there is, the answer will be the same on the WA.
The EU rules will not allow any negotiation on trade until the UK has left the EU.

What has changed?
We will soon have a new PM, of which both contenders have stated if nothing changes there will be a unilateral withdrawal from the EU by the UK
The senior figures in the EU have changed and the new grouping seems to be more 'federalist' than the previous group, and who might therefore see the UK's departure as a 'good thing' because it will aid their march towards a United States of Europe.

What might result from these new conditions in leadership both in the UK and in the EU?
The UK government seems to have (somewhat subtly) dropped the "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" mantra.
The new EU leadership may well want there to be no revocation of A50, so ensuring there is no likelihood of the UK remaining as an ongoing obstacle to a USE and this may play to Boris's idea to move the Backstop issue into the second part of overall deal, in order to break the 'no deal' log-jam.
Click to expand...

Well it's certainly the answer to 'how shall we me make sure we're not killing our economy for no good reason?'.

I'm fairly certain leave would win again so it's not really about overturning it for me but it makes absolutely zero sense not to reconfirm with the public it's just mental not to do so.

Most businesses dealing in any change have various gateway and temperature checks to make sure things should proceed. I deal in projects ranging from say 50k to several million and no matter the size we'd never proceed without confirming the need first.
 
Andrew Neil, though a cnut takes no prisoners. Brutal interview with Boris.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Once the email has been leaked I’m not sure how Johnson can defend him. His position becomes untenable.
Click to expand...

Yes that's what the 'leaker' hoped for!
Of course Hunt should defend the Ambassador, as he is the current Foreign Secretary, and hence his boss, but whoever becomes PM would still have to move him, if the US won't deal with him.
This was one area Boris was absolutely spot on, but he huffed and puffed a bit over his comments about the women held by the Iranians and about paragraph 'c'.

Andrew Neild chased both of them around a bit, much better 'watch' than the so called live debate on ITV.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes that's what the 'leaker' hoped for!
Of course Hunt should defend the Ambassador, as he is the current Foreign Secretary, and hence his boss, but whoever becomes PM would still have to move him, if the US won't deal with him.
This was one area Boris was absolutely spot on, but he huffed and puffed a bit over his comments about the women held by the Iranians and about paragraph 'c'.

Andrew Neild chased both of them around a bit, much better 'watch' than the so called live debate on ITV.
Click to expand...

I agree the new PM would have to regretfully move him at a suitable time but he should have been unequivocally backed in public. Terrible leadership, and now Boris has a whole department of senior diplomats who know their boss will hang them out to dry through no fault of their own.... while a politically motivated leaker lurks ready to do more damage. This whole episode is rotten.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
What is even more worrying is that Corbyn is still insisting on the same stupid deal that has already been rejected three times by parliament and told by the EU that the WA will not be amended. He's just as bad as the Tories.

The EU said not to waste the 6 months, both the Tories and Labour have wasted 3 years and it will carry on like that indefinitely until the EU run out of patience which should be at the end of October.
Click to expand...

OK. We all get that you are not Corbyn or Labour's biggest fan.
However, it is not Labour which has wasted the last 3 years.
That is totally down to the government and it's internal splits.
It is also not Labour who has wasted the extension till end of October.
Quite why it takes so long for the Conservatives to vote for a new leader is again totally down to them.

Anyway. That is not going to matter because Boris believes he can turn up in Brussels and the EU team will be so impressed they will give him a fantastic deal because they are so scared of a no deal exit.
Life is so simple when you are Boris. Things just happen.
 
Buster15 said:
OK. We all get that you are not Corbyn or Labour's biggest fan.
However, it is not Labour which has wasted the last 3 years.
That is totally down to the government and it's internal splits.
It is also not Labour who has wasted the extension till end of October.
Quite why it takes so long for the Conservatives to vote for a new leader is again totally down to them.

Anyway. That is not going to matter because Boris believes he can turn up in Brussels and the EU team will be so impressed they will give him a fantastic deal because they are so scared of a no deal exit.
Life is so simple when you are Boris. Things just happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not the Tories biggest fan either or any of their politicians.
Johnson and Hunt are just saying anything to the Tory members to get elected. They're just going to waste time which was quite clear. They know there's no such thing as a good Brexit it's just a question of how bad it will be and are probably hoping that they can extend past October because someone at some point is going to carry the can for the disaster that's going to ensue.

Labour in the meantime could have totally destroyed the Tories with a sensible forceful leader. Unfortunately they have a weak leader who also wants Brexit and after three years comes up with a plan that is hopeless.

I'm talking about the three years+ not the six months. There is no other deal, either the UK accept it, cancel Brexit or leave with no deal. Question is will the EU run out of patience in October.

May has been the worst PM in my lifetime, have a feeling that the next one could be even worse and Corbyn as a politician (not talking about his policies) is absolutely awful.
Problem is it's all about Tory vs Labour and not about common sense and what's best for the UK.
 
nickm said:
I agree the new PM would have to regretfully move him at a suitable time but he should have been unequivocally backed in public. Terrible leadership, and now Boris has a whole department of senior diplomats who know their boss will hang them out to dry through no fault of their own.... while a politically motivated leaker lurks ready to do more damage. This whole episode is rotten.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. I'm sure that senior diplomats recognise the realpolitik situation here in that you can't keep somebody who called Trump a moronic, corrupt cnut in that position. Everyone knows that Boris and Hunt think that Trump is a cnut, but they can't openly express that view because of the need for a close relationship with the US.
 
Telegraph said:
US tells Britain: Fall into line over China and Huawei, or no trade deal
Click to expand...
 
As soon as the tories assure Trump that they are in line it will be "include the NHS, or no trade deal". When that happens it will be "buy our gas, or no trade deal". And so on.
 
Grinner said:
Nonsense. I'm sure that senior diplomats recognise the realpolitik situation here in that you can't keep somebody who called Trump a moronic, corrupt cnut in that position. Everyone knows that Boris and Hunt think that Trump is a cnut, but they can't openly express that view because of the need for a close relationship with the US.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I would imagine that they expect Darroch to be somewhat rewarded for biting the bullet later down the line anyway, which rather removes the concern of being hung out to dry themselves. They are career-focused rather than job-focused, one suspects.
 
Abizzz said:
As soon as the tories assure Trump that they are in line it will be "include the NHS, or no trade deal". When that happens it will be "buy our gas, or no trade deal". And so on.
Click to expand...
Meh... Just tell him.once we have fixed the chimes at big Ben it will be renamed big dons dong... He will give us a free trade deal with an Ivanka donkey show thrown in on the bbc
 
sun_tzu said:
Meh... Just tell him.once we have fixed the chimes at big Ben it will be renamed big dons dong... He will give us a free trade deal with an Ivanka donkey show thrown in on the bbc
Click to expand...
You don't honestly expect Donald Trump to know of Big Ben?
 
Abizzz said:
As soon as the tories assure Trump that they are in line it will be "include the NHS, or no trade deal". When that happens it will be "buy our gas, or no trade deal". And so on.
Click to expand...
The USA needs a new Puerto Rico since they've no interest in fixing the one they have. A little island full of foreigners that make their shit on the cheap and keep their mouths shut.
 
Adisa said:
Missed this. A Tory would sell their own mother.
Click to expand...

The really amusing thing is that they are now bluffing with something they have already not done. They could have left on march 31st with no deal.


They're like a guy on top of a skyscraper shouting "I will jump" every day of the week for 3 years now.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The threat used to be : "If you don't give us a fantastic deal we'll jump off the cliff"

Now the threat is: " If you don't give us a fantastic deal we'll stay"

EU give in: Please go! Please go now!
Click to expand...

One cannot threaten something one cannot control.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
They can revoke A50.
Click to expand...
I mean in the hypothetical case where they would there would have to have been a major change in attitude towards the EU and presumably no one in the EU would say no... (So yes, the possibility exists), but it would have to be with the intention of staying (according to my memories of the ruling).

But i'm not sure that even covers the current extension?
 
Abizzz said:
I mean in the hypothetical case where they would there would have to have been a major change in attitude towards the EU and presumably no one in the EU would say no... (So yes, the possibility exists), but it would have to be with the intention of staying (according to my memories of the ruling).

But i'm not sure that even covers the current extension?
Click to expand...

Yes there would need to be a big change in attitude and the intention to stay for the long term.
Have a feeling the UK government, whoever it is, will continue to try to extend, they may be full of bravado but most of them realise a no deal exit will be catastrophic but they can't say that to the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.