She already said there'd be another vote in February I think? So I guess we see if getting knocked back by the EU on this changes the politics of things enough to make another option (extending A50, a GE, whatever) more viable than it currently is?
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.
She already said there'd be another vote in February I think? So I guess we see if getting knocked back by the EU on this changes the politics of things enough to make another option (extending A50, a GE, whatever) more viable than it currently is?
She spends the next 2 weeks trying to get concessions then they'll be voting on a deal again on February 14th ish
Not at all, extending article 50, peoples vote or a GE died with the Cooper amendment yesterday.
There's only two choices on the table now, deal or no deal.
Nah, they didn't really die, they were just put to sleep for now. As the statement from the EU leaders yesterday pointed out, an A50 extension would still be considered under the right circumstances. In the context of a looming no deal (against which there is a majority in the UK, even if they don't know what they want instead) alternative options can be reawakened as the politics of the situation shifts. As the saying goes, a week is a long time in politics and there are long weeks ahead. For example, it's not that hard to imagine a weak government collapsing in those circumstances.
As is a no deal is the clear favourite but a GE, extension of A50 or both haven't suddenly become impossible. Though a second referendum seems a fantasy notion at this point.
This is false, there will be further votes. The government only have a majority of 10, is liable to collapse via losing a confidence vote if things go really pear shaped, then anything could happen.
Make it live tv hosted by Noel Edmonds
At this point the EU should just stop negotiations with the UK up until the UK ratifies the deal they had previously agreed upon. When the UK economy tanks following no brexit then they will come around to accept anything offered to them
Not only that, she thought she could use it to increase her majority, which she fecked up royally. Destructively deluded.
Think you've bought some of the spin there. The only reason the Brady amendment passed and Coopers didn't was because there's another opportunity to vote.
This is only about directing the blame, the decisions have just been delayed 2 week.
Barnier, when asked what would happen to the border in a no-deal scenario replied that other measures would need to be found to keep the border soft. He was referring to checks away from the border. A journalist mentioned that what he was saying was in fact 'maximum facitiltaion'. Now. It is not unreasonable for the UK to draw from that statement that the EU has a concept of how to keep the border soft in a no-deal scenario. So why the need for a backstop? Now either Barnier spoke out of turn, or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he said it deliberately to nudge things along.
As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
As I see it there will have to be movement on the backstop or, as unlikley as it might seem, Corbyn and May will do a deal with regard to 'A' CU if not 'THE' CU. This would most likely get through the house too. But it would be a total kick in the balls for the ERG. However, May has nothing to lose because she's already committed to not leading the party in the next election.
I'd love to line up the ERG and give each one a swift kick in the balls in fairness.
I thought the problem with 'maximum facilitation' was always that we don't have the technology to implement it currently and even if it is there (I have no idea personally if it is to be honest) that we now have about 2 months to actually be able to set it up, which seems difficult.
I think hes trying to avoid saying we'd put up a hard border. Which is what would have to happen at some point.
I thought maximum facilitation and technology were 2 different solutions tbh. I thought the problem with maximum facilitation is it leaves the UK collecting tariffs on the EU's behalf (which they dont like) and would cost about double your annual EU payment every year (and still lead to a pile of delays as its more an issue of quantity of trucks going and forth than the length of time each one takes to pass through).
Not sure if shared elsewhere but Klopp talking sense on Brexit.
There's no magic trick here. The border controls you are referring to would be costly, disruptive, damaging to the peace process, unpopular to the UK and only possible to maintain as a temporary measure. Which is exactly what the EU see them as being:
In a no deal scenario the onus would still be on the UK to sort out the border as they would still be commited to do so under the GFA. The reality is that they would also have a hard time negotiating any free trade deals (of the sort Ireland and the EU will already have) without sorting it out. For example, if they want a trade deal with the EU then they have to solve the border issue almost as a precondition, which would mean accepting pretty much what's in the WA anyway. Further, they would also face political pressure from the US to resolve the issue as they are intrinsically bound politically to NI too.
Last edited:
If only we'd had two years to go through this option in some form of negotiation followed by an additional opportunity to challenge the arrangement.
We know the options we've ruled them all out ourselves previously. The only one not ruled out is technology because it's meaningless so it can't be ruled out.
Your comment does spur the thought that maybe what the government are actually doing is a u-turn on one of these options dressed up as an EU concession and victory for us. In fact i think that might be quite likely, i can see them saying "the EU didn't want to give it but we've secured a border down the irish sea!!"
That's the first option that the UK rejected, checks were supposed to be done at ports and the Irish Sea would be the de facto border.
The Tories are utter cnuts.
You have the ERG agreeing to fantasy 'alternative arragements' to run down the clock so they get their beloved no deal.
The rest of the Tories all buzzing over this sense of unity within the party...full well knowing in two weeks the shit is truly going to hit the fan.
With Corbyn's amendment for a Customs Union defeated yesterday, no deal will happen unless there is a second referendum.
Question: If it was put to a vote, would the UK vote to keep NI part of the UK, or let Ireland unify as one country?? As I heard someone say on the radio, could the price of Brexit be NI?
You have the ERG agreeing to fantasy 'alternative arragements' to run down the clock so they get their beloved no deal.
The rest of the Tories all buzzing over this sense of unity within the party...full well knowing in two weeks the shit is truly going to hit the fan.
With Corbyn's amendment for a Customs Union defeated yesterday, no deal will happen unless there is a second referendum.
Question: If it was put to a vote, would the UK vote to keep NI part of the UK, or let Ireland unify as one country?? As I heard someone say on the radio, could the price of Brexit be NI?
Idd, and their bluff was called on that front as the backstop only comes into effect if theres no technological solutions.
This argument defies logic.
I'm not sure you could do that without agreement of stormont. I doubt you could. Thats been suspended past 2 years so its not an option.
Ah apologies, that may well be the case, I thought they were linked together but I could be mistaken.
I've actually spent the last year or so in Australia and had mostly managed to keep out of this nonsense but am now back (potentially temporarily) and its already frustrating me beyond belief.
Looks like we're speeding our way to a no deal Brexit. Great. Can we please finally get rid of the Tories from power in this Country, they've destroyed the UK.
Nearly a decade of austerity topped by Brexit. What a fecking shit show.
I'm not saying the EU negotiators don't see it as a bargaining chip down the road. But the backstop is primarily designed to protect the GFA, and i think a lot of these politicians especially British ones seem to be forgetting that.
Even I am shocked at how bad our MPs are .
The bargaining chip isn't the backstop though and that's clearly quoted. The bargaining chip is the fact that the UK wants a lot more from future relationship.
On another note, how fecking bad is Theresa May?
The real problem is unless theres a decent turnout of 18-25 year olds in the next election I can totally see the Tories winning again. I'm not even sure how much Labour want to win an Election in any case, they probably think its a poison chalice right now. Hatd to disagree as well given the state the Tories will leave this country in by the time of the next Election.
I was expecting there to have been more calls for a Referendum so it seems like even the MPs have given up and accepted our fate of nose diving towards oblivion. Liberal Democrats could have been the genuine winners here if they'd got a leader with some flair and passion. Sigh.
Technically, the GFA does not rule out a hard border. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529
In reality, all hell would break loose.
She reminds me of that substitute teacher you'd get at school. She walks through the door everyone looks at each other and thinks "sweet, easy lesson". Useless. Granted she's been given a shit show situation but she's absymal, she's actually a European joke right now. When I talk to my friends they all laugh about her and call her the robot.
They're tied together. The bargaining chip is 'the UK want a lot more from a future relationship [than they achieve through remaining in the backstop]'.
Aye, there are technicalities and there are political realities and the latter is really what we're dealing with in this scenario.
Which is different to your first claim. The EU's leverage(bargaining chip) is the nature of the future relationship, the backstop is what Ireland through the EU wants from that advantageous position. And that's clearly stated in the quote that you provided, that's literally the last sentence.
Yeah true i wasn't saying i think that, the guy i was replying to feels the EU see the backstop as a bargaining chip down the road for negotiations on the future relationship.
The referendum is dead in the water without a GE. You can't really blame MPs residing in leave constituencies for not wanting to support it.
The People's vote should be funding local polls for all those seats to persuade them the seat is no longer leave but that won't be the case for all of them anyway. Without a huge tory rebellion it isn't going to happen.
The fact the UK wants 'more from a future relationship' is true with or without a backstop. The indefinite backstop is what turns this into significant leverage for the EU, as once the backstop is activated, the EU would be broadly happy with the status quo and have no incentive to concede to any UK demands in the future trade negotiations.
I've been thinking about it this morning. I think the solution to the backstop would be to solve the leverage problem, which is basically that, if activated, it creates a tolerable situation for the EU but a potentially intolerable one for the UK, which skews the future trade talks unfairly.
If the UK is to sign up to an indefinite backstop (which keeps it in the customs union), then there should be something added to the deal which makes remaining in the backstop long-term uncomfortable to the EU as well. That way both parties have a real incentive to get the trade negotiations finalised and exit the backstop arrangements, and it wouldn't be relying on good faith.
It's the MAD doctrine basically. The backstop needs to be equally problematic to both parties to ensure we don't get stuck in it forever.
Last edited: