Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
SqueakyWeasel said:
Could someone explain the logic in only extending the deadline to before the EU elections?

It's not like British politicians have a great record for getting things done speedily. We just took two months to ratify three words in a solution that originally got voted down by the biggest UK parliamentary margin ever … to see it get again voted down by the fourth biggest margin.

We all know that May was running down the clock hoping that the hard-liners would take her deal over no deal and a possible new referendum … her gamble (with the lives and futures of the people of Britain) backfired.

I understand the reluctance to extend past the EU elections is to avoid "looking" like Britain are planning in case of an eventual remain position by putting forward candidates … but isn't that the sensible thing to do?

Surely, if we do eventually remain, we will want to address concerns about the EU from "with-in". It's time we took the EU seriously and sent "proper" politicians out there. If we do end up staying we will be weaker than ever otherwise.

Or have I got this wrong … again :wenger:
Click to expand...

I think the timeline will depend on the direction.

If it's only extended to before the EU elections then all we'd have time for is a soft brexit negotiation. Whilst i want a second ref a soft brexit is probably the fair approach
 
Honest John said:
So in a sense no deal is legally not an option for the UK?
Click to expand...

It certainly shouldn't be an option, and afterwards you can be sure there would be court cases aplenty, but by then it would be too late of course. Crash out being the default option just causes chaos.
 
SqueakyWeasel said:
Could someone explain the logic in only extending the deadline to before the EU elections?

It's not like British politicians have a great record for getting things done speedily. We just took two months to ratify three words in a solution that originally got voted down by the biggest UK parliamentary margin ever … to see it get again voted down by the fourth biggest margin.

We all know that May was running down the clock hoping that the hard-liners would take her deal over no deal and a possible new referendum … her gamble (with the lives and futures of the people of Britain) backfired.

I understand the reluctance to extend past the EU elections is to avoid "looking" like Britain are planning in case of an eventual remain position by putting forward candidates … but isn't that the sensible thing to do?

Surely, if we do eventually remain, we will want to address concerns about the EU from "with-in". It's time we took the EU seriously and sent "proper" politicians out there. If we do end up staying we will be weaker than ever otherwise.

Or have I got this wrong … again :wenger:
Click to expand...

If you extend beyond the election what do we do with british MEPs if the UK leave? And if it's a long extension we will have issues with the new budget period that starts next year. From the EU's pov, it's easier if the UK leaves on March 29 or before the EU elections.
 
Smores said:
I think the timeline will depend on the direction.

If it's only extended to before the EU elections then all we'd have time for is a soft brexit negotiation. Whilst i want a second ref a soft brexit is probably the fair approach
Click to expand...
The fact that very few people in this country have ever taken European elections seriously is the reason why a wrecking ball like Farage has been allowed to operate and gain a platform for his populist views. I mean even I thought his attack on Van Rumpoy was quite funny.
 
foolsgold said:
Not our problem. Something for the EU & Ireland to sort out.

To be blunt saying the UK can't set its own trade and immigration polices because some terrorists in South Armagh wouldn't like it and would plant some bombs isn't acceptable. It's pandering to the threat of violence. No nation can operate on that basis.
Click to expand...
Christ almighty. There is no hope.
 
Woodzy said:
I don’t really understand much of this stuff but is it actually possible that we could leave without a deal at the end of the month?
Click to expand...

Technically that's the current trajectory, if we froze Parliament now we would be out on 30th March with nothing. MPs vote today whether they're happy to let that happen or if we go begging to the EU for more time to figure something else out.


Any MP who sides with no deal today should have their faces plastered across the country so they don't get a single vote at the next election.
 
Siorac said:
How though? Don't they have a majority? If all Conservatives had voted for the deal, it would have gone through, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

The majority of the Tories voted for it. The Labour party voted against it, were there 3 that voted for the deal?

Most people are only interested in politics on the surface level and the idea that the Labour party stopped Brexit (if its cancelled) will be one the Tories will want to sell. I think they'll have a decent narrative for it too.
 
Rumours about another meaningful vote. These guys are taking the piss.
 
[/QUOTE]
Didn't it take Russia about 20 years to get their WTO rates ag
Classical Mechanic said:
The majority of the Tories voted for it. The Labour party voted against it, were there 3 that voted for the deal?

Most people are only interested in politics on the surface level and the idea that the Labour party stopped Brexit (if its cancelled) will be one the Tories will want to sell. I think they'll have a decent narrative for it too.
Click to expand...

I still think she might roll the dice on a general election if she is forced to ask for an extension... It woul allow her to have a manifesto that supports no deal or changing some of her red lines... But most importantly it will force labour to take a manifesto position on a 2nd referendum where they either start to tear their selves apart with no referendum or they back a referendum and the election is framed about labour stopping brexit
 
I just don't understand what delaying A50 will achieve, even if the EU will agree to it?

There isn't a consensus in the house to do anything. Even if the PM wanted a second referendum, I doubt it would get a majority in the commons.

A part of me just wants to leave on the 29th March and be done with it. Ultimately it will affect the majority of those who voted to leave the hardest, so feck them anyway.
 
foolsgold said:
Not our problem. Something for the EU & Ireland to sort out.

To be blunt saying the UK can't set its own trade and immigration polices because some terrorists in South Armagh wouldn't like it and would plant some bombs isn't acceptable. It's pandering to the threat of violence. No nation can operate on that basis.
Click to expand...

Jesus what an ignorant post

Why do you think anyone would want to trade with a country that breaks treaties and agreements it signed up for?

I’m not even going to touch on the NI aspect apart from this; many many people died during the ‘troubles’ before a peace treaty was signed. It would take a special kind of cnut to walk away from that signed agreement
 
esmufc07 said:
I just don't understand what delaying A50 will achieve, even if the EU will agree to it?

There isn't a consensus in the house to do anything. Even if the PM wanted a second referendum, I doubt it would get a majority in the commons.

A part of me just wants to leave on the 29th March and be done with it. Ultimately it will affect the majority of those who voted to leave the hardest, so feck them anyway.
Click to expand...
It will affect everyone apart from the likes of Johnson and Mogg who have invested against the pound and will become even richer in the event of a hard brexit. Do you want those cnuts to win?
 
esmufc07 said:
I just don't understand what delaying A50 will achieve, even if the EU will agree to it?

There isn't a consensus in the house to do anything. Even if the PM wanted a second referendum, I doubt it would get a majority in the commons.

A part of me just wants to leave on the 29th March and be done with it. Ultimately it will affect the majority of those who voted to leave the hardest, so feck them anyway.
Click to expand...
The EU keep banging on about the UK saying what it doesn't want, and they need to know what it is actually in favour of. She could request an extension on the basis of holding a series of indicative votes to try and find a majority in the house for something. Whether the EU find that acceptable or not is hard to tell.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The majority of the Tories voted for it. The Labour party voted against it, were there 3 that voted for the deal?

Most people are only interested in politics on the surface level and the idea that the Labour party stopped Brexit (if its cancelled) will be one the Tories will want to sell.
Click to expand...
What's new? And I'm sure it'll be eaten up by those Brexitors... What can you do about that though?
golden_blunder said:
Jesus what an ignorant post

Why do you think anyone would want to trade with a country that breaks treaties and agreements it signed up for?

I’m not even going to touch on the NI aspect apart from this; many many people died during the ‘troubles’ before a peace treaty was signed. It would take a special kind of cnut to walk away from that signed agreement
Click to expand...
We shouldn't be surprised by their responses now, this late in the game....

Most of the Brexitor lot have proven themselves to be ignorant and/or selfish...
 
Honest John said:
The EU keep banging on about the UK saying what it doesn't want, and they need to know what it is actually in favour of. She could request an extension on the basis of holding a series of indicative votes to try and find a majority in the house for something. Whether the Eu find that acceptable or is hard to tell.
Click to expand...

Why do we need an extension for that? We just had nearly 3 years to decide what we wanted. Are they supposed to believe another 2-3 months is going to make a difference, despite there still being no sign of MP's coming together behind an idea?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The majority of the Tories voted for it. The Labour party voted against it, were there 3 that voted for the deal?

Most people are only interested in politics on the surface level and the idea that the Labour party stopped Brexit (if its cancelled) will be one the Tories will want to sell. I think they'll have a decent narrative for it too.
Click to expand...

Of course they will, if all the Tories had voted for the deal it would still only have passed by one vote.
 
Carolina Red said:
1) and the Good Friday Agreement political landmine?

2) The UK is 9th based on recent GDP PPP numbers. Also, South Korea is a techno giant and Canada has loads of oil and NAFTA.

3) You have 40 deals negotiated through the EU that are set to fall through. You’ve secured 6 of those at this point. Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Switzerland, Eastern and Southern Africa, and Chile.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Seychelles and the Faeroe Islands.
 
Was hilarious watching May croak through her pre-rehearsed losers speech last night. Just kept thinking of Alan Partridge asking for a glass of water.

Corbyn and his stupid proposal can get fecked too. The only one I saw speaking any sense on tv last night was Soubry again.
 
JPRouve said:
If you extend beyond the election what do we do with british MEPs if the UK leave? And if it's a long extension we will have issues with the new budget period that starts next year. From the EU's pov, it's easier if the UK leaves on March 29 or before the EU elections.
Click to expand...

Again, I bow to your guys superior knowledge on this matter. I'm doing my best to try to understand it – as I'm affected from both sides. This is what I thought I understood the position to be from reading UK and German (mostly, intelligent) reporting on the subject. Mixed in with insights I've gleaned from things I've read on here. I believe we touched on this subject when I asked a question about Macron saying he would not back an extension about 2 weeks ago.

It might be "easier" as you say, for the EU, but it's not what I understood the position to be from what I've read about their stance on granting an extension. If I recall correctly the idea would be contemplated only if it were a longer delay, including compulsory inclusion in the EU elections, and if there were some "reason" offered for the delay (new referendum, etc) as that would more likely end in "something" concrete happening one way or the other. Also, talking of budget periods, I believe the date the EU favour is until the end of 2020 which is the end of the next budget period.

I think, for the reasons mentioned in my earlier post, inclusion in the forthcoming EU elections is important and should be taken seriously to help reform from within in the case of a reversal of article 50. It changes nothing if Britain eventually leave does it?
 
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.
 
Kentonio said:
Why do we need an extension for that? We just had nearly 3 years to decide what we wanted. Are they supposed to believe another 2-3 months is going to make a difference, despite there still being no sign of MP's coming together behind an idea?
Click to expand...
Yeah but those 2-3 months will give them time to shift their personal investments
 
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...
Sensible enough. Why would they agree to an extension of a couple of months when no progress has been made the past two years?
What a shambles this is.
 
SqueakyWeasel said:
Again, I bow to your guys superior knowledge on this matter. I'm doing my best to try to understand it – as I'm affected from both sides. This is what I thought I understood the position to be from reading UK and German (mostly, intelligent) reporting on the subject. Mixed in with insights I've gleaned from things I've read on here. I believe we touched on this subject when I asked a question about Macron saying he would not back an extension about 2 weeks ago.

It might be "easier" as you say, for the EU, but it's not what I understood the position to be from what I've read about their stance on granting an extension. If I recall correctly the idea would be contemplated only if it were a longer delay, including compulsory inclusion in the EU elections, and if there were some "reason" offered for the delay (new referendum, etc) as that would more likely end in "something" concrete happening one way or the other. Also, talking of budget periods, I believe the date the EU favour is until the end of 2020 which is the end of the next budget period.

I think, for the reasons mentioned in my earlier post, inclusion in the forthcoming EU elections is important and should be taken seriously to help reform from within in the case of a reversal of article 50. It changes nothing if Britain eventually leave does it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
Still think the guy has major skeletons in his closet. Hopefully the Americans get to the bottom of it.
 
foolsgold said:
Not our problem. Something for the EU & Ireland to sort out.

To be blunt saying the UK can't set its own trade and immigration polices because some terrorists in South Armagh wouldn't like it and would plant some bombs isn't acceptable. It's pandering to the threat of violence. No nation can operate on that basis.
Click to expand...

No it most certainly is the UK's problem, they signed up to uphold the GFA the EU didn't.

In all this talk of respecting the will of the people and the result of referendums. In Britain there seems to be many people who don't give a feck about the will of the people of Northern Ireland or respecting the result of the GFA referendum.

The ignorance from some is amazing.
 
esmufc07 said:
I just don't understand what delaying A50 will achieve, even if the EU will agree to it?

There isn't a consensus in the house to do anything. Even if the PM wanted a second referendum, I doubt it would get a majority in the commons.

A part of me just wants to leave on the 29th March and be done with it. Ultimately it will affect the majority of those who voted to leave the hardest, so feck them anyway.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get either. There doesn't seem to be a majority FOR anything. Simply extending the A50 would achieve nothing: there's still no solution on the horizon that could conceivably win a majority in Parliament.

You have no idea how confusing all this is for an outsider like me. Though maybe it's just as confusing for you (plural)?
 
Kentonio said:
Why do we need an extension for that? We just had nearly 3 years to decide what we wanted. Are they supposed to believe another 2-3 months is going to make a difference, despite there still being no sign of MP's coming together behind an idea?
Click to expand...
Tbh they haven't actually tried properly. They know that May's deal doesn't command a majority and tonight they will see that there is a majority against no deal. So what could get through? They could pose a number of alternatives for indicative and free voting like:

EEA Membership
Staying in the CU
2nd Referendum (questions TBA)
Revoke A50

No need to bang on about her red lines - at this moment in time they are shot and she knows it.

I think staying in the CU might get more than 50% - which maybe something that a deal could be built around. Clearly most of the red lines would be sacrificed because the UK would have to abide by rules set by the EU, it wouldn't be able to do trade deals of it's own and it would probably have to pay for the privilidge (maybe a reduced rate).

Not ideal. Pretty pointless really. But Labour could swing behind - it even if the ERG don't.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The majority of the Tories voted for it. The Labour party voted against it, were there 3 that voted for the deal?

Most people are only interested in politics on the surface level and the idea that the Labour party stopped Brexit (if its cancelled) will be one the Tories will want to sell. I think they'll have a decent narrative for it too.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

Guy is awesome. :lol:
 
Honest John said:
Tbh they haven't actually tried properly. They know that May's deal doesn't command a majority and tonight they will see that there is a majority against no deal. So what could get through? They could pose a number of alternatives for indicative and free voting like:

EEA Membership
Staying in the CU
2nd Referendum (questions TBA)
Revoke A50

No need to bang on about her red lines - at this moment in time they are shot and she knows it.

I think staying in the CU might get more than 50% - which maybe something that a deal could be built around. Clearly most of the red lines would be sacrificed because the UK would have to abide by rules set by the EU, it wouldn't be able to do trade deals of it's own and it would probably have to pay for the privilidge (maybe a reduced rate).

Not ideal. Pretty pointless really. But Labour could swing behind - it even if the ERG don't.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.